Single-Use Plastic Bag Bans: Pros, Cons, and Effectiveness (Mostly of Replacing Single-Use Polyethylene with Multiple-Use Polypropylene)

     I acquire a lot of single-use polyethylene plastic bags through shopping but each one gets used to bag up used cat litter, which is then landfilled. Thus, in my case, they are used at least twice unless they have holes. The town where I do most of my shopping recently banned these plastic bags so, now I am collecting lots of paper bags. I did obtain by mail some more permanent bags and have been using them. I have to remember to bring them and/or keep some in my car. I am not sure if they are woven or non-woven, but I am guessing woven. I plan to reuse the hell out of them. I’m rather neutral on the subject of whether plastic bags should be banned or not, but I lean towards not banning them. Thus, I thought I would read some articles from internet sources and see what the experts and others say.

     Fox News recently reported on the backfiring of plastic bag bans in New Jersey. The report was based on research by Freedonia Custom Research (FCR), a business research division for MarketResearch.com. Fredonia Group, an affiliate, reported that the “shift from plastic film to alternative bags resulted in a nearly 3x increase in plastic consumption for bags, which is not widely recycled.” The study included market research and interviews. While this particular study may not be relevant and repeatable in other places, the findings are rather disturbing. Thus, I will quote Freedonia Group’s summary of the conclusions of the study:

 

“In 2022, following implementation of the New Jersey bag ban, total bag volumes declined by more than 60% to 894 million bags. However, the study also shows, following New Jersey’s ban of single-use bags, the shift from plastic film to alternative bags resulted in a nearly 3x increase in plastic consumption for bags. At the same time, 6x more woven and non-woven polypropylene plastic was consumed to produce the reusable bags sold to consumers as an alternative. Most of these alternative bags are made with non-woven polypropylene, which is not widely recycled in the United States and does not typically contain any post-consumer recycled materials. This shift in material also resulted in a notable environmental impact, with the increased consumption of polypropylene bags contributing to a 500% increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to non-woven polypropylene bag production in 2015. Notably, non-woven polypropylene, NWPP, the dominant alternative bag material, consumes over 15 times more plastic and generates more than five times the amount of GHG emissions during production per bag than polyethylene plastic bags.”

 

“The study also found that New Jersey retailers faced significant changes in their front-end business operations due to the bag ban. No longer permitted to provide complimentary single-use plastic or paper bags, retailers are offering alternative bags for sale to fill the void. Simultaneously, consumers are rapidly transitioning to grocery pickup and delivery services, which typically requires the use of new alternative bags for every transaction. As a result, alternative bag sales grew exponentially, and the shift in bag materials has proven profitable for retailers. An in-depth cost analysis evaluating New Jersey grocery retailers reveals a typical store can profit $200,000 per store location from alternative bag sales – for one major retailer this amounts to an estimated $42 million in profit across all its bag sales in NJ.”

 

“Despite retailers finding a compelling business case for selling alternative bags at a profit, the increased plastic consumption and GHG emissions generated during alternative bag production hamper retailers’ ability to promote alternative polypropylene bags. FCR’s analysis of New Jersey bag demand and trade data for alternative bags finds that, on average, an alternative bag is reused only two to three times before being discarded, falling short of the recommended reuse rates necessary to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions generated during production and address climate change.”

 

To summarize, in this case, more plastic is being produced and consumed, the stores are profiting, and more greenhouse gases are being emitted. While I will reuse my bags quite a lot (way more than the 2-3 times mentioned in the study), I will still use single-use bags where they are available in other places I shop. That is perhaps the one variable that can change the results the most. If anything near these results occurs in the very liberal city (an outlier urban enclave in a very conservative mostly rural region) where I shop, then the goal here will surely backfire as well. Last I heard the city was being challenged by the state, who does not want cities to be able to ban.

 

     Alternatively, there are many other groups, studies, and websites that say these bans work, including the ban in New Jersey. Environment America reports that: “Bans in five states and cities that cover more than 12 million people combined – New Jersey; Vermont; Philadelphia; Portland, Ore.; and Santa Barbara, Calif. – have cut single-use plastic bag consumption by about 6 billion bags per year. That’s enough bags to circle the earth 42 times.” “Adopting a ban on single-use plastic bags that’s similar to those policies could be expected to eliminate roughly 300 single-use plastic bags per person per year, on average.” If it is true that a person uses 300 single-use bags a year and if it is also true that they use the more permanent bags just 3 times on average then that would equate to about 100 bags per year of the heavier polypropylene bags. I currently have about 15 or 20 of these bags but I also use paper bags when I forget. I am guessing that I will get through most or all of a year with the 15-20 bags, but others will likely not. They may rip or get dirty or perhaps even unsanitary if they carry a lot of food. For instance I spilled blueberries in one yesterday. Environment America, along with US PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group produced a short paper: Plastic Bag Bans Work which points out that such bans do result in less pollution where they are enacted. I am sure this is true since the lightweight bags are easily carried away by the wind while the heavier bags (with more actual plastic in them) are not. Thus, less local litter is a given. I have been doing Adopt-A-Highway for the past 25 years so I would probably appreciate that, although where I do it is not that near the ban area. The study then goes on to acknowledge that thicker reusable (polyethylene?) plastic bags do result in more plastic bag waste by weight in a study from California. The picture below shows a plastic bag that looks like any other plastic bag but is apparently thicker and says on it that it is reusable. It looks like this bag would blow away in the wind pretty easily as well.

 

Source: Plastic Bag Bans Work. Environment America, US PIRG Education Fund, Frontier Group.

The study also notes that while paper bags are recyclable, people tend to use new ones every time they shop, which means more waste to deal with for landfills and recycling facilities. They recommend a paper bag fee. They note that Vermont’s 10 cents per bag fee resulted in a 3.6% increase in paper bag use but a similar 10-cent fee in Mountain View, California resulted in a 67% decline in customers using a paper bag. Thus, the post-ban data can vary quite significantly, and the jury is still out on whether the bag bans work overall. If local plastic waste reduction is the main goal, then they probably work well, but if other factors are considered such as overall plastic production and consumption, and greenhouse gases, then it would appear that they do not work at all.

     In summary it seems that the benefits of such single-use plastic bag bans are less litter and visible plastic pollution in the local area of the ban and the downsides of such bans are more are pollution from more polypropylene plastic production, perhaps more pollution from increased paper bag production, and increased greenhouse gases. Essentially, the bag bans are a tradeoff with uncertain net benefits and net risks but no great benefits and probably no great risks compared to no bans   

 

References:

Blue state’s bag ban meant to protect environment backfires at staggering rate: study. Emma Colton. Fox News. January 24, 2024.  Blue state’s bag ban meant to protect environment backfires at staggering rate: study (msn.com)

Freedonia Report Finds New Jersey Single-Use Bag Ban Boosts Alternative Bag Production, Increases Plastic Consumption, and Drives Retailer Profits. Kristen Pieffer. January 9, 2024. Freedonia Report Finds New Jersey Single-Use Bag Ban Boosts Alternative Bag Production, Increases Plastic Consumption, and Drives Retailer Profits - The Freedonia Group

Plastic Bag Bans Work: Well-designed single-use plastic bag bans reduce waste and litter. Environment America. U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Frontier Group. January 2024. Plastic Bag Bans Work (publicinterestnetwork.org)