Do Plastic Bag Bans Matter?
When I moved to California ten years ago, I went for a quick stop at the Safeway. I filled my arms full of groceries and ran out of the store with a smile on my face.
My wife at the time asked what was going on, probably thinking I just robbed the place. I told her that they didn’t make me get a bag!
After moving from the east coast I was so excited that the grocery staff did not force a bag on me.
Since that day in 2013, dozens of plastic bag bans have been put in place. But it’s not all rainbows and butterflies - plastic bag bans often create new issues or exaggerate other issues with more pollution.
The State of Plastic Bag Bans
California banned single-use plastic grocery bags in 2016, becoming the first state to take this major environmental step. Since then, ten states – California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington – had some form of statewide ban on single-use plastic bags as of 2023 and bans in Colorado and Rhode Island went into effect on the first day of 2024.
As of 2021, more than 500 cities and towns across 28 states had a plastic bag ordinance in effect. A recent report by by Sokolow in 2024 revealed that the implementation of single-use plastic bag bans in selected states across the USA led to an annual reduction of 6 billion plastic bags.
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. - Environment America
In 2018, the United Nations identified 83 countries that had banned the free distribution of single use plastic bags, and 61 countries that banned their manufacture and import.
For example, China, one of the world's largest consumers of plastic bags, introduced two national plastic bag ban policies, in 2008 and 2020, to crack down on the increasingly severe plastic crisis. The 2008 policies required all retailers to charge their consumers for the plastic carrier bags they used at the point of sale. In 2020, the Chinese government introduced tougher plastic bag ban policies, which required that by the end of 2020, all supermarkets in major cities be prohibited from using non-biodegradable plastic carrier bags.
Impacts of Plastic Bags
But the problem is bad. Plastic bags, one of the most widely used plastic products, have witnessed over 5 trillion in annual consumption worldwide. Plastic consumption has expanded about 200 times in the last 50 years, growing faster than any other material.
For example, China is estimated to consume 500 billion plastic shopping bags annually in the retail consumer goods sector alone. In the EU and USA the use is less, but still significant. An average EU citizen uses 198 plastic carrier bags, implying a total of approximately 100 billion plastic bags and in the USA, an estimated 103 billion single-use plastic shopping bags.
Booming plastics waste has already outgrown our capacity to manage it, and only 9 % of the plastic waste has been recycled.
Without proper management, plastic bags can block waterways and exacerbate natural disasters, acting as one of most harmful macro plastics to marine biota. The deadly burden of plastic bags on marine animals, such as whales and sea turtles,
Littered plastic bags and films (like packaging) are frequently ingested by marine animals and cause more sea turtle and cetacean (whales, dolphins and porpoises) deaths than any other type of plastic. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, single-use plastic products make around 86% of all beach litter.
The production, use and disposal of single-use plastic bags also releases water and air pollution that harms our health. Plastic bags are not biodegradable, so they can continue to pollute the environment with harmful microplastics for hundreds of years after use.
The impacts of plastic production include the cancerous toxins unleashed by manufacturing plants on low-income and communities of color in Louisiana and western Pennsylvania. Degraded plastics have been shown to release a wide range of toxic chemicals, including plasticizers, flame retardants, and colorants, which have the potential to leach into the environment, thereby contaminating soil, water, and air. The toxic fumes released by waste incinerators when plastic is burned threaten the health of nearby communities.
In parts of the global south, so much plastic litters the streets that cows graze until their plastic-filled corpses also line the streets. The impact of plastic bags on livestock is often cited as a reason for bans in African nations; Mauritania, the first African country to implement plastic bag legislation, lost 70% of livestock one year to plastic ingestion.
However, plastic bags are not the biggest source of microplastics (which account for over 92% of marine plastic waste). It is the microbeads that proliferate consumer goods (skincare, cleaning products, printer toners), industrial processes, and medical applications. Plastic bags are also not the most common form of plastic litter; it is cigarette butts, followed by plastic bottles, then their caps.
Myth 1: We Can Just Recycle Plastic Bags
Sadly much of what we try to recycle ends up in the landfill or can’t be recycled. Plastic bags are abundant, but seldom recycled in the United States. It is both economically and operationally challenging to recycle plastic bags because their light weight makes accumulating material difficult.
In the United States, 4.2 million tons of post-consumer (residential and commercial sourced) plastic bag, sack, and wrap waste were generated in 2018, but only 0.42 million tons (10%) were recycled.
Additionally, plastic bags are not allowed in most curbside recycling programs in the US because they tangle around equipment used at material recovery facilities and effect their ability to effectively sort other materials.
Myth 2: Reusable Bags are Eco-friendly
While California’s ban on plastic bags eliminated one common source of plastic waste, it inadvertently opened the door for an even more plastic waste. Some plastic bag bans include loopholes that allow thicker, so-called “reusable” plastic bags to be distributed at checkout counters under the assumption that they will be reused. Consumers often substitute for “reusable” plastic bags, about four times as thick as “single-use,” plastic bags, and treat them like single-use bags anyway.
California communities with bag policies saw sales of four-gallon trash bags increase by 55%, to 75%, and sales of eight-gallon trash bags increase 87%, to 110%.
A 2024 study by the Freedonia Group examined a New Jersey bag ban and found shoppers were not reusing the heavier plastic bags (both woven and non-woven polypropylene) designed to be used up to 125 times. Instead, they were purchasing more reusable bags on each shopping trip. The result? The total weight of plastic bags used post-ban was higher than before the ban. Note the report was funded by the American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance, which advocates against plastic bag bans.
In Chile, there was an increase of more than 50% of bin liners after the enactment of the plastic bag ban.
So, what about the folks who use reusable cotton bags? This 2018 life-cycle study by the Danish government concluded that a cotton tote must be reused 52 times to bring its carbon footprint below that of a single-use plastic bag. In terms of resource utilization, cotton has been found to have the worst impact on the environment than other types of shopping bags. Cotton utilizes large swaths of land, large volumes of water and huge quantities of fertilizers and pesticides. Moreover, there is huge energy consumption of energy that takes place in the processing and transporting of cotton since by nature cotton is heavy and bulky.
Myth 3: Paper bags are Worse for the Environment than Plastic Bags
So, no plastic bags, we get it. What about paper bags?
Paper shopping bags are made from trees, which are a renewable resource and biodegradable. In terms of environmental friendliness, the production of paper contributes to air and water pollution. Although paper is recyclable, its recycling requires the use of additional toxic chemicals for the purposes of removing ink and turning the paper back into pulp. The production of paper bags has been found to consume more water and cause atmospheric acidification than the production of plastic bags.
Following Portland, Oregon’s bag ban, which did not have an associated paper bag fee, paper bag use shot up 500% prior to the local ordinance being superseded by a statewide ban with paper bag fee in 2020.
Growing trees for paper uses up a lot of water and fertilizer. But when we make bags from recycled paper, their impact lessens, since recycled content uses far fewer resources (trees, energy, water, and chemicals) than virgin fiber content.
Paper bags are readily recyclable or compostable. That’s not true of single-use plastics. Paper ultimately breaks down, whereas the 13 million tons of plastic that make their way into our oceans each year do not.
Myth 4: Biodegradable Bags are Beneficial
As we have mentioned for dog waste bags, many plastics labelled as biodegradable, actually are not in most cases.
In China, due to the lack of product identification and classification habits, close to 97 % of biodegradable plastics are sent to incineration and sanitary landfill after use. Large-scale promotion of degradable products will instead increase environmental impacts by 1.4–22.6 times without clear identification of degradable products, sufficient sorting habits and sorting capabilities, and treatment processes that match product standards.
Even more concerning is that many biodegradable plastics fragment into microplastics. These microplastics are easily ingested by many types of animals in rivers and oceans, leading to death, obstruction of the digestive tract, malnutrition, suffocation, death, and even possible bioaccumulation and biomagnification processes. A recent study revealed that if biodegradable plastic was thrown away in the environment, it could end up being as harmful to the environment as normal plastic.
Numerous Life Cycle Analysis studies also find that plant-based substitutes for plastic products may have higher carbon footprints, contributing to a greater extent to climate change.
Biodegradeable bags can also contain higher levels of some toxins than regular plastic bags, such as Chromium, Zinc, Manganese, Cadmium, Chlorine and Bromine.
“Biodegradable” promotes techno-optimistic discourse and imaginaries that go as far as to promise Western consumers the ability to continue current consumer behaviours - Elena Balestri, Senior Fisheries Policy and Science Manager
Myth 5: Plastic Bags are not a Climate Problem
By their very nature, plastic bags are a climate issue. Their material is made from the use of fossil fuels. About 8% to 10% of our total oil supply goes to making plastic. It is estimated that about 12 million barrels of oil a year are used in making the plastic bags used in the US. The refinement of plastics emits an additional 184 to 213 million metric tons of greenhouse gases each year.
On March 2, 2022, the United Nations Member States endorsed a resolution to end plastic pollution and forge a legally binding agreement by 2024. The agreement is expected to address the full lifecycle of plastics to reduce and eliminate plastic pollution. This means addressing impacts of plastics development including fossil fuel extraction, chemical processing, resin production, manufacturing of plastic products, plastics in-use stock, and end-of-life treatment.
Make it stand out
Myth 5: It’s Not About the Money
Plastic bag fees and taxes have resulted in reductions in plastic consumption. Across places with plastic bag taxes, a $0.05 tax on disposable bag use, decreased disposable bag use by over 40%, whereas an equally large subsidy for reusable bags had no significant effects. In South Africa, a decrease of 76% was seen after a $0.07 tax.
Myth 6: We are All the Same
Male consumers use significantly fewer reusable bags and old plastic bags than female consumers use, regardless of the toughness of the plastic bag ban policies. Researchers think this difference probably arises from males' reluctance to behave like females because of the traditional mentality that carrying a reusable bag for shopping is feminine. As a result, males may continue to purchase new carrier bags and use them significantly more often than females.
What are the Most Effective Plastic Bag Bans?
Bag bans plus fees or taxes have been effective tools for reducing the use of plastic bags, but aren’t enough. Bag bans need to include all types of plastic, to prevent leakage and further environmental degradation.
Because bag bans have led to increased purchases of trash bags, additional efforts are need to green all plastic bag production and use. However, even a tax on trash bags will likely lead to leakage elsewhere, where consumers will purchase another plastic bag option.
This places responsibilities on manufacturers to be innovative in their design of plastic bags or a substitute. As we saw, biodegradable plastics are not yet effective at protecting the environment. That may require us to localize and make bags from materials that occur in our environment.
Mycelium from mushrooms can be used to make standard and custom-molded packaging and bags that is 100% biodegradable. Mushroom Packaging uses hemp hurds and mushroom mycelium to create water-resistant and insulating solutions that compost within 30 days when added to soil.
Another option is jute bags which are made from natural fibers grown in Asia. The plants grow in rows and are harvested, dried, and woven into bags. Ultimately these bags can easily be composted at their end of life.
The challenges with all manufacturing processes is that companies end up adding chemicals to their product to make them stronger. This means that they nearly eliminate the environmental benefits of using natural materials.
At the end of the day, the goal is to keep trash out of landfills and our waterways. Consumers need a set of choices to achieve this, as changing behavior is not a one size fits all approach. In China, consumers prefer to use their own canvas shopping carts, while others may prefer to use paper bags. Many Costco shoppers use old cardboard boxes, which may be one of the best options if the boxes are reused or recycled.
Policies with high consumer involvement produce greener bag usage behaviors
Policies requiring high consumer involvement could, in the long run, induce more pro-environmental bag usage habits than those requiring little involvement.
Charging high prices for plastic carrier bags increases the cost of no-bag shopping. This negative stimulus makes it more likely that people want to avoid these negative behaviors in the future. Unfortunately the cost needs to be high enough that people will want to avoid their discomfort. This high cost may create additional inequities as the higher the cost, the greater impact to lower income shoppers. A more progressive, sliding scale cost may be more equitable, but likely challenging to implement.
