I’ll admit it: I’m a bit of a skeptic about the anti-plastic bag hullabaloo. Just about every study I’ve seen suggests that, when you compare plastic bags with paper grocery sacks, plastic is the unexpected winner: they produce less air and water pollution, take up less space in landfills, consume less energy over their life cycles, take less energy to recycle, and are responsible for lower levels of global warming emissions.
And I’m not just talking about industry-funded studies either: as far as I can tell, disinterested academics find the same things. This old Washington Post infographic isn’t definitive, but does a decent job of summarizing the statistics.
But perhaps more importantly, all the attention that gets focused on the paper-vs.-plastic debate is something of a distraction. When we looked at the issue a few years back, we discovered that the environmental impact of decisions in the grocery aisles were way, way more important than bag choices. The chart to the right shows the “embodied energy” in a high-carbon sack of groceries, a lower-carbon alternative diet, and in the bags themselves. Clearly, if you don’t think about the impacts of your personal choices until you’re in the checkout line, you’ve waited too long.
So given all that, why do I think that the proposed Oregon law to ban plastic bags deserves lawmakers’ support?
Three reasons:
First, it’s not just about plastic bags. The legislation would also establish a nickel fee on paper bags as well. Experience from Ireland and Washington, DC, among other places, shows that bag fees can be very effective at encouraging shoppers to use reusable bags. And the studies I’ve seen find reusables superior to both paper and plastic. So Oregon’s proposed law wouldn’t simply encourage a switch from plastic to paper—an iffy trade-off at best—but instead would reduce the demand for disposable bags of all sorts.
Second, plastic bags have other external costs that most life cycle studies don’t pick up. Plastic bags do escape the waste stream—where they’re unsightly, and may create risks for marine life. (That said, as far as I can tell bags themselves are a relatively small part of a much bigger problem with plastic debris in the oceans—with plastic fishing gear being a far, far bigger direct risk to most wildlife, and the impacts from plastic breakdown products still a big unknown.)
Closer to home, plastic bags have been a real problem for recyclers. The bags clog up recycling machinery so badly that one Oregon-based recycler recently estimated that 20 to 30 percent of their total labor costs were related to plastic bags—pulling them from the rest of the recycling stream, untangling them from their equipment, and stopping all work when bags clog up the machines—and about 7 percent of otherwise recyclable paper has to be landfilled because of plastic contamination. So plastic bags in the recycling stream likely undermine the effectiveness of recycling efforts overall.
And then there’s the fact that plastic bags are a major contributor to clogged sewers—which costs cities like Portland big money, according to Portland mayor Sam Adams.
A third reason to support Oregon’s proposed bag ban is, well, just on general principles. We need to stop pretending that “free” things have no external costs!! Even if the precise costs are difficult to pin down, they’re certainly not zero. And as a community, we’re perfectly within our rights to start doing something to control them. And the right kinds of community standards—including both bans and fees—have proven far more effective than lecturing and moral suasion.
Still, I do have to marvel that plastic bags generate so much public animus. There are so many other things that deserve our attention more. Coal power, for example, causes many orders of magnitude more harm than plastic bags. That doesn’t mean that efforts to promote reusable bags aren’t worthwhile—they are!! But still, the attention we give to bags may show something important about human nature: all too often, our attention and concern is drawn more to what’s visible in our daily lives than to what’s truly important.
Arie
Argument 1 makes a good case for charging for bags, but this can be applied to paper or plastic. Argument 2 is stronger, especially the bit about losing 7% of recyclable paper to plastic contamination. If the recyclers will commit to a 5-7% increase in efficiency then you have a powerful case. Until then it’s just one recycler making a statement that can only benefit it. The third statement is a better argument for charging more for certain types of waste. Either directly to consumers or by having retailers bear the cost to the recycling industry and for other mitigation. I’m actually for this measure, but I can’t help but wonder if similar amount of energy and advocacy could be put to other causes with higher ROI for the environment.
Mike
The other good thing about getting on top of this issue is that not only removes the “physical” clutter and rubbish but removes the “emotional” and “issue” clutter as well.We can then focus on the less visible but important issues.
Linda Fettig
The use of paper bags will help stem the problem of too many plastics in our world. Yet honestly the cost in trees and energy to produce and recycle paper bags may be a wash economically, but a step in the right direction. Along with the campaign for paper, a real push should be in the direction of encouraging consumers to bring their resuable bags to the store. Catchy adds about storing reusable bags, like in desk drawers at work, or hang them on your bike handles, or store them in your trunk would help the cause. Before I started storing extras bags in my trunk I would leave them at home 70% of the time. The biggest part of any issue is raising awareness.
Heywood Jathynk
Those “free” bags one used to get were not “free”. The merchant covered that cost as a part of CUSTOMER SERVICE. Standing in a grocery checkout with 50-100 items only to be asked.. “Oh, did you want bags?” Is ridiculous. Every single merchant could cover the costs and supply their customers with an adequate method of carrying the goods they just purchased out of their store. Not to do so is frankly stupid. In fact, merchants already increase prices to cover other operating costs. Why are bags any different? Oregon’s new bag ban does nothing but burden CONSUMERS – and will do NOTHING to “protect the environment”. The arguments you pose are ludicrous. If anyone thinks these bans are going to do ANYTHING to help the environment, they are kidding themselves. Recycling is a myth, often costing more resources than manufacturing from scratch. This is all nothing more than politicians wanting to appear “woke” with some moronic “talking point”, even if it’s completely misguided. This new legislation does, and will do, nothing but annoy consumers. Politicians are morons who have COMPLETELY lost touch with constituents. How about lowering taxes? Healthcare? Standards of living? nooo….. but bags…. yeah.. bags…. that’s what they deal with. What’s next.. charging consumers for receipts???