Why a Ban?
by Ramey Ko
Plastic bags are convenient, but
they’re an oil product that degrades our environment. While recyclable, only 1% of all plastic bags
produced are ever recycled. 99% of
plastic bags end up in a landfill or as litter.
Plastic bags contribute to global warming, kill animal and fish life,
degrade our creeks, rivers, and oceans, clog our sewer systems, and are among
the most visible signs of litter and debris.
Given these realities and the experience of other attempted policy solutions, I believe that merely emphasizing greater recycling of plastic bags is an inadequate response; rather, we must fundamentally alter policy to significantly reduce our use and consumption of plastic bags. To that end, we ought to enact a city-wide ban on plastic bag use at large groceries and pharmacies.
Are there better options?
I acknowledge that this is not an easy decision. Generally, it is almost always preferable to choose the least restrictive and disruptive means of achieving a desired policy goal. However, having evaluated the policy options available in this case, I do not see how we can achieve a significant reduction in plastic bag use without a ban.
Pre-ban efforts in San Francisco , which included an extensive public relations campaign focusing on increased recycling in one of the greenest cities on Earth, only resulted in a 1% recycle rate. [1] By contrast, Ireland’s .15 Euro tax on plastic bags reduced that nation’s plastic bag use by 90%. [2]
Relying on individual consumers to reduce plastic bag use presents a classic collective action problem. An individual consumer’s choice to use plastic bags is fairly insignificant on its own. The vast majority of consumers probably do not even realize that they are contributing to the significant consequences of plastic bag usage. Even an environmentally conscious consumer may easily conclude that her own choice to abstain from plastic bag use would have little impact, and any small benefit would be far outweighed by the perceived inconvenience.
Yet collectively, our plastic bag
use is undeniably harmful to our community and planet. San Francisco,
a city approximately the same population as Austin
(San Francisco is the 14th largest
city in the US , Austin the 16th),
consumes 180 million plastic bags annually. [3] It requires 430,000 gallons of oil to produce
100 million plastic bags. [4] Additionally, plastic bags comprise
approximately .5%-2% of our solid waste stream. [5]
A ban on plastic bags is concededly a restriction on individual choice and the freedom of businesses to make particular decisions. Government should always tread carefully when limiting individual freedom to achieve a desired policy goal. If we could discover an effective and less restrictive way of reducing our use of plastic bags as successfully as bans have, I would wholeheartedly support such efforts. Given the empirical evidence, the nature of the collective action problem, and the concrete experience of other jurisdictions, though, I see no other option other than a ban that could achieve our desired end.
Changing our culture
If plastic bags were an indispensable part of daily life, a ban would be out of the question. Plastic bags, however, are essentially a luxury. Many alternatives are available to transport groceries and other retail purchases. We can use compostable bags, paper bags, tote bags, or simply carry our purchases. Each of these choices has significantly less impact on our environment. Even presented with these options, however, most Austinites are choosing plastic bags.
Considering the persistence of our current culture even in a city as environmentally conscious as Austin , I believe nothing short of a ban of plastic bags at large grocery stores and pharmacies can achieve our goal of significantly reducing plastic bag use.
Fundamentally, we are not simply
attempting to achieve a short-term policy goal.
In this ban, we are attempting to alter the very culture of consumption
in our community. Thus, a city-wide ban
on plastic bags should be phased in gradually along with a marketing campaign
and the distribution of a million free tote bags financed through sponsorship
by private partners.
Our true goal must be to promote an entirely different shopping culture. This is not a radical idea. Several countries across our planet have achieved this same goal, some over a decade ago, and view the American addiction to plastic bags as yet another example of our perceived wasteful and decadent consumer culture.
Problems
Even if we conclude that a ban is the only meaningful solution, we must acknowledge the problems with such a policy.
First, compostable bags, paper bags, and tote bags are simply more expensive than plastic bags. Grocers and retailers may respond to a plastic bag ban and the resulting increase in the use of more expensive alternatives by passing the cost onto consumers.
I believe this argument is flawed. A successfully crafted ban and public relations campaign will aim to fundamentally shift consumption habits and transform Austin into a city that uses environmentally safe tote bags, not disposable bags of any type.
In the worst case, our efforts will be unsuccessful in shifting attitudes, and only a small percentage of consumers will shift to tote bags. If that is the case, businesses may pass the cost of more expensive alternatives such as paper bags and compostable bags onto consumers in the form of higher prices or by charging consumers a fee for bags.
While it would be unfortunate if businesses decided to charge consumers for bags, it is reasonable that individuals who refuse to use tote bags should bear the cost of their environmentally damaging behavior. Rather than everyone in the community subsidizing the cost of their disposable bag habit, hold-outs will bear that cost directly. It seems only fair that those individuals with the least concern for the impact of plastic bags should pay the price.
Furthermore, if businesses respond by charging a fee for bags, it may actually provide an additional incentive for consumers to move to tote bags.
A few
years ago, the Taiwanese government began requiring businesses to charge
customers a few cents per plastic bag.
This policy resulted in a 69% reduction in plastic bag use and a large
shift to tote bags by consumers. [6] Thus, even an initially disappointing
response to a proposed ban might still result in the desired goal in the long
term.
Higher prices across the board present a more complex problem. However, citizens of Austin already pay for the use of plastic bags through taxes and other costs related to cleaning and storing plastic bag waste. Plastic bag litter is a persistent and costly problem for waste disposal companies and the public sanitation department. A ban would merely shift some or all of these costs, but in return, citizens would at least gain the added benefits discussed above. Currently, plastic bag waste acts as a tax on citizens with little benefit.
Second, compostable bags complicate plastic bag recycling programs by contaminating the recycling stream. This is not an easy problem to address. The solution will require educating consumers about how to recycle compostable bags. The City will also have to ensure that we have an additional recycling stream to address compostable bags. We may also have to ensure that these bags are clearly and visibly marked with instructions on how to recycle them. However, the problems posed by compostable bags are problems of implementation that can be solved with a little hard work and ingenuity. Finally, the scope of the problem may be fairly small if we can successfully encourage the switch to tote bags.
Conclusion
As Austinites we have a moral obligation to set an example and serve as leaders in environmental protection. Plastic bags are not the greatest threat to our air and water quality. They are a small but meaningful part of the larger problems we face in protecting our environment and addressing global climate change. But it is our sacred duty to leave our world a little bit better than we found it. Through a ban we can reduce our oil consumption, our carbon footprint, and our contribution to land fills. We can beautify our city and make a strong stand as national leaders in the effort to protect our natural resources.
A ban is not a perfect solution, but it is the best option available if we wish to achieve meaningful progress.
[1] ttp://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=2
[2] http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/006402.html
[3] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/28/MNGDROT5QN1.DTL
[4] Id.
[5] Plastic Bag Stakeholder Group Meeting, May 21, 2007
[6] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0615/p07s02-woap.html