Since the introduction of durable plastics, the prevalence of single-use plastic bags has grown to be a daily norm. Yet with increasing concern over the detrimental environmental impact of plastic bags, multiple states and municipalities have sought to curb the usage of non-biodegradable plastic bags. The solution appears to be rather straightforward; to implement a ban against plastic bags.
An example of a plastic bag ban can be seen in the one implemented in San Jose, California, one of the first municipalities to ban plastic bags and also one of the most successful municipalities in reducing plastic bag usage to date. According to an effectiveness study done by the city, in the ensuing half-decade since the legislation, plastic bag litter decreased by over 72%, saving almost half a billion tax dollars in conservation efforts. Twice as many shoppers opted not to use a plastic bag, choosing to use paper or reusable bags. So we should ban plastic bags, right?
Not exactly. Despite these successes, however, there remain several caveats, many of which are often overlooked in campaigns against single-use plastic. While plastic bag usage went down, the usage of thicker bags like trash bags spiked. This was because in lieu of plastic bags, consumers simply shifted to other single-use disposable goods as substitutes which were not subject to the ban. At the same time, though replacing plastic bags with paper bags may seem more environmentally friendly, a study by the Scottish Environment Group showed that the ability of paper to decompose is often negated by the fact that it requires more energy and resources to manufacture than plastic bags. This is on top of the fact that plastic bags themselves are often reused and take up less space in landfills than paper bags. Cotton tote bags are no exception since studies have shown that upwards of 130 uses are necessary for it to be a better choice than single-use plastic bags.
Such has been the rationale for places like Texas, where plastic bags bans themselves have been banned. There, officials question the actual environmental effectiveness and scope of such extensive programs. They argue that single-use plastic bags are more hygienic than the often unwashed reused bag. This has been especially relevant given the current coronavirus pandemic, with increasing concern over public health overshadowing the environmental impact of plastic bags. And we can’t ignore the economic impact of a ban. With the production of plastic bags directly or indirectly employing more than 30,000 people, such a ban would also imply the loss of jobs for many Americans.
However, these counter arguments do not necessarily deprive the argument against single-use plastic bags of its symbolic importance. They simply question the efficacy of a ban. In terms of behavioral economics, simple bans theoretically only prevent otherwise wasteful consumer behavior to occur, instead of actually motivating a consumer’s behavior to actively reduce his or her consumption and waste. In short, an incentive for consumers to decrease usage remains lacking.
As seen in government policy, again and again, taxes have always served as a practical financial conveyor of incentives or disincentives. In this case, placing a tax on plastic bags, like the five-cent tax in D.C., creates an active disincentive. Consumers consciously decide to reduce or even eliminate their usage of plastic bags, an individual choice that is lost when bags are banned outright. This emphasis on individual choice is also partially economically allocatively efficient, as it allows consumers who have no easy substitutes to single-use plastic bags, like dog walkers, to continue to have access to a normal good. Thus, taxes are a compromise solution that not only pragmatically decreases plastic bag consumption but also is palatable enough to the general public to be politically feasible.
This concept of influencing personal decisions through macroeconomic policy like taxes is the cornerstone for long term sustainability when attempting to scale up policy to address other environmental issues, like fossil fuels, where immediate or even long term bans have not seemed politically feasible. Reductions in usage are dependent on the sum of individual decisions, often more motivated by the impact on pocketbooks than by emotional appeals.
Nonetheless, if governments switch to a more lenient policy of taxing plastic bags rather than outright bans, the plethora of issues that come with taxes may do more harm than good. With the weight of tax shifted to the consumer, marginalized communities, especially the urban poor may be disproportionately burdened with yet another tax.
As seen by the mixed blessings of differing solutions, there is no silver bullet in the fight against single-use plastics. Previously clear bandwagon solutions like bans have muddied when analyzed for their economical and environmental repercussions. But what does this mean when we extrapolate it for solutions and ideas in general?
When we consider ideas, we often subconsciously expect the presentation of the solution to be indicative of its effectiveness. As humans, we rely heavily on our initial impressions, focus on a handful of examples, and follow the opinions among our peers and public figures. This is especially common in grassroots activism movements in highschools, where I’ve observed that peer pressure and group mentality sometimes replace personal perception. While the robustness of activism does partially lie in numbers, without individual judgment we risk misplacing our support on solutions that, when closely examined, may not be effective or align with our values and principles.
Consequently, the civic duty of a global citizen and personal responsibility of a high school activist is to forge an opinion on issues through the individual analysis of socioeconomic and environmental ramifications. Thus, returning to the fight against single-use plastics, only when this personal responsibility of policy analysis and the personal responsibility of consciously reducing our environmental impact are embraced by the society as a whole are we able to build a path of action that is both agreeable to the general public and fruitful in moving towards a cleaner and greener Earth.
