
How Green Is That Grocery Bag Ban? (2014) [pdf] - prostoalex
http://reason.org/files/how_green_bag_ban.pdf
======
abalone
Arguments shouldn't be disqualified based on their source alone, but at the
same time they shouldn't be accepted just because they appear academically
rigorous, have charts, etc. This comes from Reason which is a right-wing think
tank funded by the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil, among others. So, definitely
some close examination is needed before accepting any of their conclusions.

Have any of us taken a close look at the arguments contained within? I noticed
that on page 44 where it finally gets into the meat of the argument in
environmental impacts, it actually noted that given the projections of San
Francisco's office of the comptroller, the ban actually has positive effects.
Then it constructs its own "scenario 2" under which is would have negative
effects. And then as far as I can see it never argues which scenario is valid!
It just jumps to a conclusion later on (p56) that things are "uncertain" so a
ban is therefore "irrational".

That just smacks of propaganda draped in the clothes of academia. For some
counter arguments see:
[http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/10/08/californias-
plas...](http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/10/08/californias-plastic-bag-
ban-myths-and-facts/201064)

~~~
BobCat
> For some counter arguments see:

Personal experience - every single bag I get from the grocery store is used
again to dispose of garbage. Doesn't everyone do that?

Making me buy garbage bags is much more wasteful.

~~~
prostoalex
Yep, that's by far most recyclable item in the house. The usage balloons with
various (mostly unpleasant) cases such as diapered baby, sick cat or just
plain love for French cheeses. I guess it's far more enviromentally friendly
to use an entire 13 gallon trash bag per each of those incidents.

~~~
abalone
_> I guess it's far more environmentally friendly to use an entire 13 gallon
trash bag per each of those incidents._

That's an absurd assumption. You can purchase a small amount of ziploc style
bags for such cases, which are right-sized and thus less wasteful and also are
better suited for the task as they have a proper seal.

~~~
prostoalex
One could, but

Ziploc bag with a slider seal, 15c a bag [https://www.amazon.com/Ziploc-
Slider-Storage-Bags-Count/dp/B...](https://www.amazon.com/Ziploc-Slider-
Storage-Bags-
Count/dp/B01FXMDA2O/ref=sr_1_2_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1479050245&sr=8-2&keywords=Ziploc+bags)

Most common trash bag, 11c a bag [https://www.amazon.com/Kirkland-Signature-
Drawstring-Kitchen...](https://www.amazon.com/Kirkland-Signature-Drawstring-
Kitchen-
Trash/dp/B001UB44SM/ref=sr_1_5_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1479050278&sr=8-5&keywords=Trash%2Bbags&th=1)

And as you correctly noted, ZipLoc bags are not a staple of most households,
one needs to remember to purchase them. Trash bags are in a "must have" league
with toilet paper and tooth paste.

------
londons_explore
This research is valuable, but the quality of this paper seems rather
lacklustre. Do research well or don't do it at all. Don't publish an un-peer-
reviewed paper with the phrase "is parroted by" in it.

The scope is too wide considering the research it draws from - pick a sub-
topic like "plastic bag restrictions effect on tonnage of plastic recovered
from street surfaces".

Drawing a chart of "number of bag bans"? Really? We could make that down to
one if we just outlawed it nationwide. It isn't a sensible thing to measure.

I really want to see this research done well, but sadly this isn't it.

~~~
CalChris
The Reason Foundation is funded by the Koch Family Foundations and David Koch
sits on its board of directors. Koch Industries includes plastics
manufacturing.

[http://reason.org/trustees_and_officers/](http://reason.org/trustees_and_officers/)
[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Family_Foundations](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Family_Foundations)

There is no disclosure of these facts in this report.

~~~
wool_gather
I recognize the importance of skepticism about sources of information, but why
would a paper like this need to specifically "disclose" one of the board
members of its publishing organization?

~~~
oxide
It seems like a conflict of interest, IMO.

This is very much a political topic. When you take into context where the
funding came from, the "research" presented in this abysmal paper looks a lot
more like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

~~~
azinman2
Especially since the Koch brothers use their money to sway policies.... and
effectively at that.

------
barrkel
From the Irish perspective [1], when the bag tax was introduced in 2002: it
was promoted as an anti-litter measure. By that metric, it was successful:
plastic bags went from 5% of litter to less than 1%.

This paper talks about the Irish experience but not from an anti-litter
perspective, rather looking at how total plastic bag usage shifted. And it's
definitely true with a bag tax in place, you need buy more bags, because they
don't accumulate through grocery purchases. But that wasn't what the tax was
for.

And of course it raises revenue in a way that is easy to avoid if you're
motivated, so it is naturally progressive.

[1]
[http://www.marlisco.eu/The_plastic_bag_levy.en.html?articles...](http://www.marlisco.eu/The_plastic_bag_levy.en.html?articles=the-
plastic-bag-levy-ireland)

~~~
internaut
I veer in the direction of libertarianism but I can't refute the effectiveness
of that tax. It works.

In place of plastic bags the supermarkets put their good used boxes at the
head of the store and I can handily truck my shopping away in one of them.
That then winds up at the recycling center later on, and in the worse case
scenario of it being chucked outdoors by someone cardboard is biodegradable.

It is true that buying a 'bag4life' would emit more CO2 and extrude more
plastic net but that wasn't the real issue since those effects are marginal.
The amount of litter did reduce.

Now I would like to see us implement the German approach to bottles. They pay
people money to collect them, I think it is 25c per bottle, and this has been
very effective at keeping them off the streets as well as putting some money
into the hands of those who could do with a bit of cash.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElYT8SMl-
qI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElYT8SMl-qI)

I reckon on this being cheaper than hiring more street cleaners and cleaner
machines so I view it as using a market mechanism.

------
swampthinker
Does anyone have a link to the full study they cite about litter? They only
citation they have is a memo brief, and that graph raises some serious
questions about methodology. Namely, tobacco products accounting for 32% of
all litter. It seems like they made a cigarette butt equivalent to one plastic
bag, which is not a fair comparison environmentally or visually.

------
blondie9x
Go to Austin, go to SF, go to West LA. Plastic bans are already banned. Go to
Orange County CA go to Mexico City go to Shanghai. Plastic bans are allowed.
Compare. Latter cities have cleaner streets no bags on streets, in trees,
hooked on fences, on the beach, in the water, etc. These bans work and it is
evidence of how stricter environmental regulation or taxes are effective to
prevent man from hurting man. Or man to hurt the nature he and his posterity
depends on.

------
dawnerd
Here in Portland we use paper bags. I have a nice pile of them that I use for
holding recycling. There's no cost per bag either. More cities should go this
route.

~~~
WillPostForFood
You'd need to show paper bags are less impactful than plastic before knowing
whether to recommend them.

~~~
TulliusCicero
Paper decomposes relatively quickly; plastic takes forever. This is already
well known.

~~~
Someone
Forever? Depends heavily on the plastic. Plastic bags also are lighter and
less voluminous, making transport of them to the customer (at first sight)
less polluting.

Paper bags also may see fewer reuses than plastic ones.

The question whether paper bags are more environmentally friendly than plastic
ones is not an easy one to answer.

Most discussions on this I have read conclude you should bring your own bag,
rather than single-use plastic or paper bags.

~~~
dawnerd
When I lived in Socal and got plastic bags from target they all ended up in
the trash because there wasn't recycling for them available nearby and I
wasn't going to drive way out of my way to do it. Here I've been using the
bags at least once again, and they always end up in recycling.

The city even recommends using them for yard waste and other compostables as
the bags are perfectly biodegradable.

------
douche
Plastic grocery bags are a disaster, purely from a utility standpoint. I
really miss the days of the brown paper bags; you could fit as much in one
paper bag as in four or five plastic bags, they were rugged enough to actually
hold up, and you could compost them or use them for kindling.

------
Zigurd
Only one comment here mentions visual pollution. I've never seen paper bags
snagged on a barbed wire fence. You can see plastic bags on fences a mile
away. Much worse than cigarette butts.

------
99_00
Can't speak to this study, but now I have to buy plastic bags to line my
garbage cans instead of reusing the ones stores give me.

All in all I still throw out fewer bags.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Did the bags not have holes in the bottom to avoid children suffocating? If
they did, would you not worry about fluids leaking out of the bin?

~~~
gruez
I literally never encountered a grocery bag that has holes intentionally
punched in. I do, however see them in product packaging.

~~~
DanBC
There's some drive to have them put in as a small suicide prevention measure.

In the UK a few supermarkets had holes in their free bags. I haven't checked
the new paid bags.

------
amalcon
This comes from reason.org, which immediately should raise everyone's
suspicions, but it's pretty well written and organized. We can evaluate it
ourselves, and since I find my city's ban pretty annoying, I thought "Why
not?".

Section 2.1 disagrees with the notion that plastic bags consume lots of
natural resources by quoting someone who claims that they consume a lot of
oil, and disagreeing with him, saying that they are made from mostly natural
gas. This is just silly: technically they're not wrong, but their argument is
only compelling if you for some reason believe that natural gas is a less
valuable resource than oil.

Section 2.2 starts off well, citing a study saying that HDPE bags aren't
actually that big a component of litter overall. Point in favor there. They
also cited the same study to demonstrate that plastic bags aren't that big of
a storm drain problem. It goes downhill from there: the section on the marine
ecosystem basically consists of them disagreeing with more reliable sources
without actually citing any evidence. Then, it for some reason goes into a
discussion of the Pacific garbage island, which seems irrelevant.

That section turns around at the end, proposing a better way to reduce litter
and citing a successful example of such a program.

Section 2.3, on whether or not restrictions on HDPE bags actually reduce
waste. The first section establishes that plastic bags aren't that big a
fraction of landfill waste: This is the beginning of a good argument, but to
complete the argument they would need to show that bag restrictions have cost
larger than that small benefit, and they did not do this.

Landfill decomposition: This is a good argument, +1 point here.

Section 2.4, Global Climate: The life cycle analysis in section 3 does a good
job of supporting the argument that plastic bags don't significantly
contribute to climate change.

Section 4 cites various anecdotes about the long term effectiveness of bag
restrictions. There are only six such examples cited. That suggests cherry
picking, since there were many more such examples even two years ago.

This section does also reiterate the previous good argument that an effective
plastic bag ban wouldn't help that much if at all with greenhouse emissions.

Further on, in section 4.6, the document tries to make the argument that bag
restrictions are expensive, but the numbers they describe seem similarly small
to the damage described in section 2.3. While completing the argument, it
doesn't actually make it compelling.

The health argument is one I've heard a lot, so I won't try to address it
here: that argument is all over the place.

Overall the document makes some good points, some suspect ones, and some
irrelevant ones.

------
justcuz
The horrible risk of reusable tote bags was recently covered on the cartoon We
Bare Bears in the episode "Tote Life".

------
hammock
This whitepaper is from 2014 and is still just as true. The great garbage
patch is also a myth, perpetuated by a fake photo that usually runs with the
story in the news.

They banned plastic bags in Chicago. The thin ones. All that happened was now
every store gives you a free "reusable bag." These new bags are the same bags
as before, but thicker. They are not reusable bags. So in this town it's very
clear the regulation was a net negative on reducing plastic consumption.

~~~
fragsworth
In L.A. we've had a ban for a long time. The thin bags are banned, so they are
all thick bags now. And stores are also required to charge at least $0.10 per
bag.

Everyone I know just pays for the new thicker bags. It's $0.30 for three bags
on a $100 grocery bill.

The real annoyance comes from people not knowing exactly how many bags they
need, and usually guessing too low (not wanting to be wasteful), so the
baggers take longer trying to figure out how to squish everything in the
bags... and sometimes the customer has to pay an extra $0.10 if they need
another bag. Which gets them to dig around for a dime. This probably slows
down checkout lines by a significant amount (10% or so?).

~~~
lettergram
My friend and I estimate an extra 45 seconds at every checkout for this stupid
tax. I say this because they always ask (regardless if you brought your own
bags) if you want new bags and it'll cost $0.10. Couple that with the fact on
average people visit three stores per week, make an average of $60/hour and
that there are roughly 7 million people in the bay area and you get this bag
tax costing the bay area an estimate:

$15,750,000 per week in lost productivity from wasted time at check outs

(.75 minutes per checkout X 3 times per week / 60 minutes per hour) X $60 an
hour average salary X 7 million people

To me the tax is insane and doesn't help the environment. It just got voted on
and passed too. Just force paper bag use, and the environment would be
cleaner. Simple, it'll save the economy and do more.

I realize this seems like an (and is likely a slight) over estimate of the
cost. However, you can do it yourself, we waste a lot of times due to this.

~~~
an_account
$60/hour? The average person definitely does not make that.

~~~
lettergram
I believe the average is around $35 / hour, then you have to add the cashier
cost which is $20-$30. The cashier cost is $20 for salary plus $10 for
benefits.

------
dbg31415
TL;DR: Banning bags has no measurable benefit.

Conclusions

Proponents claim that banning plastic shopping bags will benefit the
environment. Yet, as this study has shown, there is very little empirical
support for such claims. Indeed, the evidence seems to point in the other
direction for most environmental effects. Some of the alleged benefits are
simply false, such as the claim that eliminating plastic bags will reduce oil
consumption. An assessment of the San Francisco ban on plastic bags suggests
that while there may have been a very small reduction in the amount of litter
generated, some emissions—such those of greenhouse gases—may well have
increased as a result of the ban.

At the same time, concern about the environment is only one of many issues
affecting consumption choices. When it comes to shopping bags, the look, feel,
and—likely most important for the majority of consumers—function are very
important. HDPE plastic bags are strong, light and highly convenient (there is
no need to remember to take them along when shopping, since they are supplied
by the store). Also, they are typically reused for various purposes. These
features have made them very attractive to consumers. By contrast, reusable
NWPP bags are bulky (causing inconvenience when shopping), must be washed
between shops if they may have come into contact with harmful bacteria, and
must be remembered prior to going shopping (making them far less convenient);
moreover, households using NWPP bags will typically purchase more garbage bin
liners.

In spite of widespread media attention to the largely false claim that plastic
bags are environmentally harmful, bans on the use of plastic bags are not
popular: A recent Reason-Rupe poll showed that 60% of Americans oppose plastic
bag bans, while only 37% are in favor. Opposition is non-partisan, though it
is stronger among independents (64%) and Republicans (71%) than Democrats
(52%).

Environmental groups that really care about the problem of litter, such as
Keep America Beautiful, have generally promoted solutions that substantially
reduce the amount of litter generated, such as public information campaigns
focused on litter reduction, and facilitating clean-up operations. In other
words, they target littering behavior, which is the actual cause of litter,
rather than opposing the existence of certain types of product that might
become litter. Meanwhile, environmental groups that really care about the
protection of marine animals know that litter is not the prime culprit of
diminished marine life and generally focus on other issues, such as policies
that promote overfishing.

Unfortunately, policymakers have been cajoled into passing ordinances that ban
plastic bags. That is bad news for consumers. It is also bad news for the
environment, since the public has been misled into believing that by
restricting the use of plastic bags, the problems for which those bags are
allegedly responsible will be dramatically reduced. As a result, they are less
likely to undertake activities—such as reducing littering and supporting
policies that would lead to better protection for marine animals—that would
actually benefit the environment.

~~~
mangeletti
Based on your description, I think your tl;dr was meant to read as, "Banning
bags has no measurable benefit."

~~~
dbg31415
Good catch. (=

We banned bags in Austin a few years ago... but now for the most part I just
pay $0.25 every time I need a bag. And now I have to buy special purpose dog-
shit bags instead of just reusing supermarket bags.

What I do like though is seeing less plastic bags on the side of the road.
Helps keep the place from looking like an oil field construction zone.

------
GFK_of_xmaspast
This is from reason.org, which would have pre-conceived notions about such a
ban.

~~~
pjlegato
This is an "ad hominem fallacy." The attributes or beliefs of the entity
making an argument are entirely irrelevant to whether the argument is correct.
The argument must be evaluated solely on its own merits.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
What's your analysis on the phenomenon of people believing Onion articles?

~~~
pjlegato
They've failed to analyze the merits of the article sufficiently. They are, in
fact, committing the "ad hominem" error -- they see what appears superficially
to be a trustworthy news site, and they believe it unquestioningly, based on
the supposed authority of the source, rather than independently evaluating the
claims being made.

------
Kenji
It's a classic case of environmentalist authoritarianism backed up by
emotional arguments from bored politicians. That's why I oppose green parties
so harshly despite caring a lot about nature and environment.

~~~
callinyouin
Sorry, but I don't buy that you care "a lot about nature and the environment"
if you oppose environmentalism in general. We do a lot as human beings to harm
the environment, and climate scientists generally agree there is a point of no
return that we're heading towards. I'd cite a source or two, but we all know
there are plenty of sources and by now you're either going to believe the
overwhelming evidence or you're going to live in denial. Even if that were not
the case, pollution in general is and has been visibly harmful to a number of
ecosystems - oil spills, smog, etc. have an obvious negative impact on humans
and animals alike. If you cared about the environment as you claim you do you
would not oppose efforts to lessen the damage we do to it.

~~~
Kenji
_If you cared about the environment as you claim you do you would not oppose
efforts to lessen the damage we do to it._

I don't oppose efforts to lessen the damage. I oppose efforts that do not
change the damage in any way, shape or form, or efforts that impose large
costs at little or no benefit at all.

~~~
exodust
Single-use bags take up to 1,000 years to degrade in landfill.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. goes through 100 billion
plastic shopping bags annually.

There's your "way, shape and form".

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Essentially nothing degrades in a landfill. Not even food waste.

If we don't use plastic shopping bags, we'll use something else that costs
_more to manufacture_. Has more manufacturing impact on the environment.
Paper, fabric etc. They can be reused, but it would take thousands of reuses
to total less environmental damage than the extremely efficient plastic bag.

Its conceivable that plastic bags are the minimum impact to the environment,
considering all the options.

------
Simaramis
I have thus far failed to get an answer from anyone as to what the revenue of
this tax, albeit tiny, is being used for. As it stands it just pads the
grocer's bottom line. Whereas it should be used to fund research and
protecting the environs. But everyone is mum. At least in California.

~~~
CalChris
It isn't a tax. It's a minimum price. The money goes to the grocer.

    
    
      The bill also required a 10 cent minimum
      charge for recycled paper bags, reusable
      plastic bags, and compostable bags ...
    

[http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-
resourc...](http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-
resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
It the UK most shops donate it to charity.

