New York’s bad bag ban
On March 1, New York’s second-in-the-nation statewide plastic bag ban went into effect, prohibiting retailers from giv- ing out this once ubiquitous modern convenience for free. Shoppers must now bring their own tote bags, use a paper bag (or pay five cents for one in New York City and other counties with a fee), purchase a state-approved reusable bag or carry their loose purchases home in their arms.
This, according to proponents of the ban, is a small price to pay for the benefits of a bag-free environment.
“Plastic bags are hanging in trees, blowing down the streets, filling up our landfills and polluting our lakes, rivers and streams,” said Gov. Cuomo last month. “We took bold action to protect our environment and ban these environmental blights.”
“Using reusable bags makes sense and is the right thing to do,” says the Department of Environmental Conservation, which encourages people to not just carry tote bags with them, but actively evangelize on their behalf. “You can also remind your family, friends and neighbors to bring their reusable bags whenever they shop.”
The intentions of Cuomo and state regulators are no doubt noble: prevent litter, protect the environment and cut down on fossil-fuel consumption. Yet by targeting plastic bags, they are focusing disproportionately on a visible but minimal portion of the state’s litter. Worse, banning these items will only shift shoppers toward using less environmentally sound alternatives.
Only a tiny portion of plastic bags are littered, and only a tiny portion of litter is made up of plastic bags.
According to a study cited in a report from Cuomo’s own plastic bag task force , Americans use 100 billion plastic bags a year, of which 50 million become litter. That’s a big number. It nevertheless shows that only about one in every 2,000 bags aren’t being disposed of properly.
That’s why plastic bags make up such a small percentage of litter that’s collected off New York’s coastline. According to a 2019 report from the Ocean Conservancy, grocery bags made up about 5% of the trash found on New York beaches.
The country as a whole is actually pretty good at preventing litter. One 2015 study estimates that only about 1% of the plastic that leaks into the oceans each year comes from the U.S.
Bag bans, like any ban, also come with unintended consequences that undercut the goals of plastic prohibitionists.
Despite being derided as “single-use,” plastic grocery bags are often reused, whether to line small trash bins or to clean up after pets. When people can’t get these for free at the store, they end up just buying thicker garbage bags instead.
One study of local bag bans in California found that they increased consumption of four-gallon-sized plastic garbage bags by 120%. Another Greenpeace study found England’s 5-pence fee on plastic bags increased sales of reusable “bags for life” by 26%.
“The impact of this simple substitution is a major concern, given the significantly higher plastic content of bags for life,” reads the Greenpeace study.
That study of California’s local bag bans did find that these policies reduced overall plastic consumption. But that’s not an unmitigated good when one considers the environmental impact of the paper and cloth bags people are switching to.
The production and transportation of these bags uses more resources, and produces a lot more emissions. The result is a paper bag would have to be reused more than three times before it was better for the climate than a traditional plastic bag. The cotton tote bags that New York regulators are actively encouraging consumers to adopt would have to be reused 131 times.
Littered plastic bags aren’t pretty and can be hazardous to plants and wildlife. New York could address these ill-effects by distributing more public trash cans, or spending more money on waste collection. That would be superior to a bag ban that restricts consumers’ freedom, and comes with a host of unintended environmental consequences.
Britschgi is an associate editor at Reason magazine.