5 ms·

Your argument is a popular contrarian take, but it doesn't seem to hold up to the evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/31/government-urged

Your argument is a popular contrarian take, but it doesn't seem to hold up to the evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/31/government-urged-to-repeat-success-of-plastic-bag-charge https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/31/governme... If California has a problem it isn't because bag bans don't work, it's because they've screwed up their implementation. And yes, supermarkets do still use a lot of unnecessary plastic in packaging, but that's another issue that can also be tackled, and I haven't seen evidence that it has actually got worse since the plastic bag levy. Arguing that plastic bags shouldn't be tackled because something else could be done is an argument to do nothing. Plastic carrier bags were an absolute scourge a decade ago, they were everywhere. Their use has been absolutely decimated. The arguments that people are secretly using more because they're no longer re-using them as bin bags or because they're buying "bags for life" instead are bad faith arguments that just don't hold up to the statistics or the reality of the situation. Over 7 billion less plastic bags produced per year in the UK. That's a tremendous achievement.

gruez 3y ago
The OP was talking about "bag bans". Your linked article talks about a "bag charge". Those are totally different things. Bag bans force forgetful people to buy "reusable" bags that take more plastic to produce, and inevitably pile up an need to be disposed of. Bag charges don't have that issue, because you can continue to buy thin bags, just at a steep markup.
- duke_sam 3y ago
  Most shops in Ire/UK have stopped providing thin plastic bags for sale. All bags are either bags for life or (much) more expensive reusable plastic bags. Only small convenience stores still have the thin bags available.
- xnorswap 3y ago
  Taxes are almost always the best way to implement "bans", you get huge benefits: 1. People feel less aggrieved if they still can technically access something at a price. ( Less accusation of Government overreach. ) 2. Economically nudging behaviour is extremely effective. People will do a surprisingly amount of work/effort to avoid even a small cost. 3. If people continue the behaviour you want to ban, you get a good revenue stream, and can escalate taxes ( e.g. Tobacco taxes ) 4. It reduces the size of a black market emerging for the banned goods ( i.e. Don't make the mistakes of USA during Prohibition. ) That California didn't realise this and naively implemented a concrete ban is screwing up implementing a ban.
lozenge 3y ago
That's a very selective statistic from a government department. How many "reusable" bags are sold every year? Each one weighs 50-100x more than the old bags and I guarantee they aren't used proportionally more times. The statistic given doesn't even cover most businesses. It only covers the major supermarkets - who only offer single use bags in online deliveries and make everybody else buy a much more expensive reusable bag. Pretty much every small business still offers a 10p bag.
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  > How many "reusable" bags are sold every year? My question is how many "reusable" bags are being used once and then thrown out, effectively becoming massively wasteful single use bags? My guess is a lot. Maybe not as many as single use plastic bags, but they must be even worse for the landfills, surely... > who only offer single use bags in online deliveries My mom gets online grocery deliveries from walmart and everything comes in "reusable" bags. They never take them back or anything so every time she gets groceries they just accumulate. It's to the point where she's using them as bin liners just like single use plastic because she needs to get rid of them just the same. You could argue she should stop ordering from them, or there should be consequences for her. Maybe you're right. Maybe people should have thought about other possible downstream consequences of banning single use plastic bags before enacting such a ban. I don't think "this could cause even more pollution in the long run" ever even crossed their dimwitted minds. Too focused on the short term "we reduced single use plastics by 90%" KPI. Government policy by MBA.
  - martycon 3y ago
    If you take plastic bags and stuff them into a pillow case and then seal the pillow case with a zipper, you can make plastic bag pillows. The more bags inside, the stiffer the cushioning. Reuse is important too.
- milliams 3y ago
  > Each one weighs 50-100x more than the old bags and I guarantee they aren't used proportionally more times. Previously I'd get a bag from the shop which would be used that one time. Now, the "bag for life" I own has been used for years already. That's easily more than "50-100x more".
cal85 3y ago
> Arguing that plastic bags shouldn't be tackled because something else could be done is an argument to do nothing. How does that follow?
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Any cherry-picked stat can look good. What replaced those 7B? Cloth? Paper? Exercise for the environmentalist: which has a larger impact on the planet? Compare and contrast. Nothing is wholly a win here. Just by existing we impact the planet. Seriously, the principle effective way to reduce environmental impact is to have 7 billion fewer people on the planet. Anything else can be seen as theatre.

gruez 3y ago

The OP was talking about "bag bans". Your linked article talks about a "bag charge". Those are totally different things. Bag bans force forgetful people to buy "reusable" bags that take more plastic to produce, and inevitably pile up an need to be disposed of. Bag charges don't have that issue, because you can continue to buy thin bags, just at a steep markup.

duke_sam 3y ago
Most shops in Ire/UK have stopped providing thin plastic bags for sale. All bags are either bags for life or (much) more expensive reusable plastic bags. Only small convenience stores still have the thin bags available.
xnorswap 3y ago
Taxes are almost always the best way to implement "bans", you get huge benefits: 1. People feel less aggrieved if they still can technically access something at a price. ( Less accusation of Government overreach. ) 2. Economically nudging behaviour is extremely effective. People will do a surprisingly amount of work/effort to avoid even a small cost. 3. If people continue the behaviour you want to ban, you get a good revenue stream, and can escalate taxes ( e.g. Tobacco taxes ) 4. It reduces the size of a black market emerging for the banned goods ( i.e. Don't make the mistakes of USA during Prohibition. ) That California didn't realise this and naively implemented a concrete ban is screwing up implementing a ban.

lozenge 3y ago

That's a very selective statistic from a government department. How many "reusable" bags are sold every year? Each one weighs 50-100x more than the old bags and I guarantee they aren't used proportionally more times. The statistic given doesn't even cover most businesses. It only covers the major supermarkets - who only offer single use bags in online deliveries and make everybody else buy a much more expensive reusable bag. Pretty much every small business still offers a 10p bag.

bluefirebrand 3y ago
> How many "reusable" bags are sold every year? My question is how many "reusable" bags are being used once and then thrown out, effectively becoming massively wasteful single use bags? My guess is a lot. Maybe not as many as single use plastic bags, but they must be even worse for the landfills, surely... > who only offer single use bags in online deliveries My mom gets online grocery deliveries from walmart and everything comes in "reusable" bags. They never take them back or anything so every time she gets groceries they just accumulate. It's to the point where she's using them as bin liners just like single use plastic because she needs to get rid of them just the same. You could argue she should stop ordering from them, or there should be consequences for her. Maybe you're right. Maybe people should have thought about other possible downstream consequences of banning single use plastic bags before enacting such a ban. I don't think "this could cause even more pollution in the long run" ever even crossed their dimwitted minds. Too focused on the short term "we reduced single use plastics by 90%" KPI. Government policy by MBA.
- martycon 3y ago
  If you take plastic bags and stuff them into a pillow case and then seal the pillow case with a zipper, you can make plastic bag pillows. The more bags inside, the stiffer the cushioning. Reuse is important too.
milliams 3y ago
> Each one weighs 50-100x more than the old bags and I guarantee they aren't used proportionally more times. Previously I'd get a bag from the shop which would be used that one time. Now, the "bag for life" I own has been used for years already. That's easily more than "50-100x more".

cal85 3y ago

> Arguing that plastic bags shouldn't be tackled because something else could be done is an argument to do nothing. How does that follow?

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

Any cherry-picked stat can look good. What replaced those 7B? Cloth? Paper? Exercise for the environmentalist: which has a larger impact on the planet? Compare and contrast. Nothing is wholly a win here. Just by existing we impact the planet. Seriously, the principle effective way to reduce environmental impact is to have 7 billion fewer people on the planet. Anything else can be seen as theatre.