The Path to Plastic Free—Reusable Bag Laws

A beach clean up in Rapa Nui at the start of our sailing expedition in Spring 2020.

Did you notice the messaging in the title? You might wonder why not something catchier like "Ban the Bag." While it has a nice ring to it, taking away bags might leave some scratching their heads in confusion. How are they supposed to carry their groceries or take their to-go orders home? Ideally, we hope to enact policy with the greatest likelihood of changing consumer behavior and reducing all disposable bags, which goes beyond just banning plastic bags. Reusable bag laws provide a way to begin the conversation.

Communication matters.

Messaging matters, especially when considering how to motivate others to support the regulation.

Many plastic bag regulations focus on environmental missions, including the impact of plastic on Mother Nature and all her creatures. That's where statistics like this one come into play: By 2050, there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish by weight. For communities like mine located hundreds of miles from the nearest ocean, we might need to connect the plastic problem to global warming and use statistics like this one. Plastics are derived from fossil fuels—primarily oil, gas, and coal—therefore creating more carbon emissions.

The environmental urgency might not land with everyone. We can motivate some people to action by learning about the health impacts. New research shows that microplastics that flow into the ocean get released into the air, and the wind carries these small pieces of plastic over long distances. Even more troubling than finding microplastic in the air is how much ends up in our soil and water system, ending up in the food we eat. While we all knew that shellfish often contained tiny bits of plastic, research released in 2020 shows that we ingest hundreds of tiny particles that get lodged in our tissue by eating something as innocuous as an apple. We are still learning what impact plastic has on the human body. By looking at research on marine animals, we know that the plastic never goes away, accumulating and causing respiratory damage.

For those unmoved by environmental or health concerns, there is a strong economic argument. Plastic never goes away. The burden of cleaning up falls on us, the taxpayers, while industry profits.

Accessibility

No matter how comprehensive the messaging, we must be sure to include a low-income exception. How can we support those who can't afford to purchase reusable bags? What pathways exist to make a plastic-free world accessible to the most vulnerable among us? Already I imagine local designs on canvas bags sponsored by forward-thinking local businesses offered at grocery store entrances. Or reusable bag giveaways in conjunction with outreach and education programs in low-income programs. Brainstorming low-income access should be at the forefront of policy considerations, which is why I bring it up here before we even discuss policy tools.

Legislative Tools

Policies to regulate plastic bags can include a straight ban, a charge, or a hybrid approach.

Under the ban approach, plastic bags of a certain thinness are either not allowed to be: used, sold, distributed, or manufactured (or some specified combination). Bans can apply to designated businesses. If plastic bag bans fail to address other disposable bags, companies switch from one type of single-use to another. The plastic bag industry has resisted bans and argues that bans could harm the environment because switching to paper bags requires more energy than manufacturing plastic, resulting in worse environmental impacts. One way to avoid this argument is by banning all single-use bags.

A charge approach involves the use of fees, levies, or taxes to regulate plastic bags. By charging for a plastic bag, we make the invisible cost of plastic seen. Charging for bags encourages people to bring one along. For this work, the charge must be set high enough to change consumer behavior and sustain change (with a pathway for low-income individuals who would find the fee prohibitive). The charge approach also requires transparency in terms of where the money goes. The policy should define how the funds will be spent-- on clean up, education, or locally in another way.

The hybrid model includes banning single-use bags while charging consumers for reusable bags. This model provides an alternative in case someone forgot to bring a reusable bag.

Ending on Hope

It's tempting to fall into the malaise of what does it matter anyway. I know that feeling all too well. A year ago, I wrote a packing list for a month-long sailing expedition to study plastics in the sea. I researched products that provided an alternative to plastic and set off with high hopes of positive changes for the year. If anything, my plastic consumption, has increased during the pandemic.

There are days when I'm tempted to throw in the bag and numb myself to the plastic problem. Whatever I do is just a drop in the bucket. Given the magnitude of the crisis, regulating plastic bags doesn't change things.

But then why is the plastic industry spending millions to lobby against local ordinances? At $1.2 billion, it's a small change for the $374 billion plastic industry. They are staging fierce resistance because they see reusable bags as a gateway action. The pandemic has taught us that we are more adaptable and resilient than we imagined. We have learned to stay at home and wear masks out in public; surely, we can learn to bring along bags, too.