Banning Plastic Bags

Document 1

The Right Chemistry: Ban Plastic Bags? It’s Not So Simple

[1] …There’s no question that plastic bags are a symbol of our throw-away culture and are an inviting target for scorn, because they are a visible sign of pollution. They can be seen fluttering from trees, floating in that much publicized patch of plastic detritus1 in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and clogging sewers in parts of Asia. But the bags don’t dive into the ocean, jump into sewers or take flight without help. Human help. We are the real problem. With proper recycling, reuse or disposal, benefits can outweigh risks.

[2] What then are the perceived risks? Arguments usually revolve around the bags being made from oil, a non-renewable resource, the plastic being non-biodegradable,2the bags taking up space in landfills, the bags being unnecessary because of ready replacement by paper or reusable bags, and the bags leaving a large carbon footprint.3 Disposable bags are made of high-density polyethylene, which is manufactured from ethylene derived either from petroleum or natural gas. In Canada, the source is usually ethylene made from ethane, a component of natural gas that otherwise is commonly burned off.

[3] Plastic bags do not biodegrade in a landfill, as we are often told. This is true, but modern landfills are designed to have a low oxygen environment to prevent biodegradation that would result in the formation of methane, a greenhouse gas. The purpose of a landfill is to seal in the contents and prevent substances from leaching4out. Since plastic bags are highly compressible, they take up very little volume in landfills. In any case, plastic shopping bags are estimated to make up less than 1 percent of litter.

[4] Paper shopping bags do not biodegrade in a landfill either and because of their greater mass they are a greater burden on the waste stream. Paper manufacture is an energy intensive process and requires the use of many chemicals. Cradle to grave calculations generally show that plastic bags have a lower carbon footprint than paper bags. “Biodegradable” bags are a marketing scheme; they don’t degrade under normal conditions.

[5] But why should we make an issue of plastic versus paper? Why not rely on reusable bags? Here too, the issue is not as simple as it seems. A cotton bag would have to be used about 130 times in order to have a carbon footprint that is less than that of a plastic bag. Growing cotton requires more pesticides than most crops and processing and transport require a great deal of energy. If the plastic bag is reused to line your garbage can, a cotton bag would have to be used over 300 times to have a lower global warming potential.

[6] Reusable plastic bags are often made of laminated plastics and are not recyclable. Depending on the type of plastic, whether low density polyethylene, or non-woven polypropylene, a reusable bag would have to be used at least 10-20 times before it becomes more environmentally friendly than a disposable bag. There is also the issue of contamination if reusable bags are not cleaned properly. A warm trunk is an excellent incubator for bacteria originating from that trace of meat juice left in the bag.

[7] If not reused for that next trip to the grocery store, or for lining garbage bins, or for collecting garbage in a car, or for picking up after pets, or for covering food in the fridge, disposable plastic bags are eminently recyclable into plastic lumber, trash cans, containers and new plastic bags.

[8] Many municipalities5 and even countries have banned the giveaway of plastic bags or have introduced fees for them. That has resulted in the use of more paper bags, not an environmental plus, and an increase in the sales of plastic bags for garbage bins. …

—Joe Schwarcz excerpted from “The Right Chemistry: Ban Plastic Bags? It’s Not So Simple” http://montrealgazette.com, March 25, 2016

1 detritus — debris

2 non-biodegradable — unable to break down

3 carbon footprint — the amount of greenhouse gas associated with a product

4 leaching — leaking

5 municipalities — communities

Document 2

The Effects of Plastic Bags on Environment

[1] …There is no way to strictly limit the effects of plastic bags on the environment because there is no disposal method that will really help eliminate the problem. While reusing them is the first step, most people either don’t or can’t based on store policies. They are not durable enough to stand up to numerous trips to the store so often the best that citizens can do is reuse them when following pooper scooper laws.

[2] The biggest problem with this is that once they have been soiled, they end up in the trash which then ends up in the landfill or burned. Either solution is very poor for the environment. Burning emits toxic gases that harm the atmosphere and increase the level of VOCs1 [Volatile Organic Compounds] in the air while landfills hold them indefinitely as part of the plastic waste problem throughout the globe.

[3] Even when citizens try to manage their plastic bag disposal, wind plays a role in carrying them away as litter. This litter is not biodegradable and thus where it lands it tends to stay for a long period of time. A bag that is eventually ripped to shreds from high winds or other factors doesn’t disappear but instead is spread in smaller amounts throughout the area. This can cause more problems as these smaller pieces are carried away through storm drains and often end up in the waterways. …

[4] One of the greatest problems is that an estimated 300 million plastic bags end up in the Atlantic Ocean alone. These bags are very dangerous for sea life, especially those of the mammal variety. Any hunting mammal can easily mistake the size, shape, and texture of the plastic bag for a meal and find its airway is cut off. Needless deaths from plastic bags are increasing every year. …

[5] The environmental balance of the waterways is being thrown off by the rate of plastic bags finding their way into the mouths and intestinal tracts of sea mammals. As one species begins to die off at an abnormal rate, every other living organism in the waterway is impacted. There are either too many or too few and changes within the environment continue to kill off yet more organisms.

[6] The indefinite period of time that it takes for the average plastic bag to break down can be literally hundreds of years. Every bag that ends up in the woodlands of the country threatens the natural progression of wildlife. Because the breakdown rate is so slow the chances that the bag will harmlessly go away are extremely slim. Throughout the world plastic bags are responsible for suffocation deaths of woodland animals as well as inhibiting soil nutrients.

[7] The land litter that is made up of plastic bags has the potential to kill over and over again. It has been estimated that one bag has the potential to unintentionally kill one animal per every three months due to unintentional digestion or inhalation. If you consider the number of littered plastic bags ranges from 1.5 million to 3 million depending on location, this equals a lot of ecosystem-sustaining lives lost. …

[8] While it’s a noble thought to place the plastic bags in the recycling bin every week, studies have proven that there are very few plants that actually recycle them. Most municipalities either burn them or send them off to the landfill after sorting. This is because it can be expensive to recycle this type of plastic. It doesn’t melt down easily and is often not realistically able to be reused from its original form without considerable overhaul to the facility.

[9] The premise of recycling these bags is nice. Yet funding for the upgrades just has not happened and thus less than 1% of all bags sent to recycling plants worldwide end up in the recycling project. Most are left to become a pollution problem in one way or another. …

—Jamey Wagner excerpted and adapted from “The Effects of Plastic Bags on Environment” www.healthguidance.org, 2017

1 VOCs — carbon-based chemicals that easily become a vapor or gas at room temperature

Document 3

Should Cities Ban Plastic Bags?

This excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article includes a journalist’s introduction to the plastic bag ban issue and the viewpoints of an environmental expert, Todd Myers, against the ban.

[1] Plastic bags are one of the most common items in everyday life. And they are at the heart of a fight raging in municipalities world-wide.

[2] Many cities around the globe have already banned the ubiquitous1 bags from stores, and activists are pushing for bans elsewhere. They argue that cities must spend vast sums to clean up the bags and the damages caused by them, money that’s better spent elsewhere. Not to mention that plastic bags are a blight on the environment, polluting waterways and other natural areas and killing off animals. Banning plastic bags, the activists say, will redirect funds to infrastructure2 and spur entrepreneurial3 efforts to come up with alternatives to plastic. …

[3] But there’s no evidence that banning bags helps the environment—and plenty of evidence that it may actually hurt. Bans yield little benefit to wildlife while increasing carbon emissions4 and other unhealthy environmental effects.

Little Harm to Wildlife

[4] Let’s go through the arguments for banning bags. Ban backers cite impacts on marine life, but they consistently sidestep the actual data. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for one, says there are currently no published studies about how many marine mammals die because of marine debris. Meanwhile, other sources of marine debris, such as discarded fishing gear, are recognized as a danger to sea life. Why the frenzy over one source—plastic bags—in the absence of evidence?

[5] As for the pollution caused by plastic bags, consider a study by Ospar, the European organization working to protect the marine environment. The study found plastic shopping bags represented less than 3% of marine litter on European beaches, a figure that includes scraps of plastic from shredded bags.

[6] Meanwhile, the claim that municipalities spend a substantial amount of their trash budget, let alone millions of dollars, on picking up plastic bags is hard to believe. In many cases, these claims are guesses by advocates instead of data based on actual studies, and cost is often thrown in as a justification after bans are enacted for political reasons. …

[7] Some ban supporters claim plastics harm human health, even when studies from organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Pacific Northwest National Labs show these claims are false or exaggerated.

[8] Consider a study from the U.K. Environment Agency that found plastic grocery bags have the lowest environmental impact in “human toxicity” and “marine aquatic toxicity” as well as “global-warming potential” even after paper bags are used four times and reusable cotton bags are used 173 times. Why? Largely because paper and cotton bags come from crops that require fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and the like.

Environmental Effects

[9] Critics also say that ban opponents ignore the environmental impact of bags over the course of their lifetime. But many studies do just that. The U.K. Environment Agency’s study, for instance, compared the energy expended in creating, using and disposing of plastic, paper and reusable bags to arrive at its figures. Consumers would have to use a cotton bag 173 times before they match the energy savings of one plastic bag, assuming 40% of bags are reused—a percentage that’s actually lower than the rate in some cities.

[10] Some critics say we need to ban bags because voluntary take-back programs don’t work. But the point of the programs is simply to reuse bags, and consumers already reuse bags to hold garbage or pick up after pets. As for the idea that plastic bags cost consumers more, the reason grocery stores use plastic instead of paper or other bags is that they cost less and hold more. Reusable bags are even more expensive.

Let’s Be Honest

[11] …Weighing the costs and benefits makes it clear that banning plastic bags yields little benefit at very high cost. Unfortunately, the political symbolism of banning the bags is powerful. It is often easier to ignore the science that indicates such bans may actually harm the environment than to make an honest effort to weigh these issues. All of this is why plastic bag bans are more about environmental image than environmental benefit.

—excerpted from “Should Cities Ban Plastic Bags?” www.wsj.com, October 8, 2012

1 ubiquitous — found everywhere

2 infrastructure — fundamental facilities and structures, such as roads, bridges, and power supplies

3 entrepreneurial — business leadership

4 carbon emissions — greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere

Document 4

The Economic Effect of Plastic Bag Bans

[1] A study from the National Center for Policy Analysis [NCPA] claims that a ban on plastic bags used by grocers and retailers can negatively impact sales in the ban area and increase sales among stores just outside the bag ban region. …

[2] During a one-year period, before and after the ban, the majority of stores surveyed in areas with a ban reported an overall average sales decline of nearly 6%. While the majority of respondents surveyed in areas without a ban reported an overall average sales growth of 9%. …

[3] The NCPA survey said that stores under the bag ban also experienced a 10% reduction in employment, while employment in stores outside of the ban slightly increased. [NCPA senior fellow, Pamela] Villarreal said that was particularly “alarming.”

[4] “We often hear about the environmental effects of plastic bags, but the economic effects are generally ignored,” she said. “When you think about the unemployment rate in this country, any negative impact on employment is something to take notice of.”

[5] The U.S. plastic bag manufacturing and recycling sector employs more than 30,000 workers in 349 communities across the nation, according to the American Progressive Bag Alliance, an organization representing the plastic bag manufacturing and recycling sector. …

[6] Leila Monroe, staff attorney for the oceans program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), looks at the impact on jobs in a different way. She said bag bans provide an opportunity for the industry to innovate.

[7] “They can pull together and look at how they can design better products that are truly durable and easily recyclable,” Monroe said. “I have no doubt that if the industry put in the time and investment to retool operations, they can ensure there aren’t job losses, but instead work on ways to move the industry forward.”

Plastic bag alternatives

[8] As paper bags are starting to also get listed on the ban list, more attention is now focused on reusable bags. Reusable shopping bags can be made from fabric, woven synthetic fibers, or even polypropylene.

[9] Vincent Cobb, founder of Reuseit.com, first launched the site in 2003 to offer alternatives to single-use plastic shopping bags. The site then expanded to include all types of reusable products. …

[10] Brad Nihls, VP [Vice President] of operations for Reuseit.com, said the company is all too aware that the reusable bag market is flooded with cheap quality, green-washing1 products. He said the company warns customers about looking out for cheaply made reusable shopping bags.

[11] “One item of concern with reusable shopping bags are the very cheap reusables that are often given away during promotions or selling at grocery stores for 99 cents,” he said. “The concern here is that while they are marketed as reusable shopping bags, they really are just a glorified disposable bag, which we feel is even more damaging than the single-use plastic shopping bags.” …

[12] When it comes to plastic shopping bag bans, Nihls said the company doesn’t view bans as a big “windfall” for the company. …

[13] Some reports state that plastic bags are responsible for less than 1% of all litter. For instance, litter audit data from major Canadian municipalities show that plastic shopping bags are less than 1% of litter. In San Francisco, surveyors found that plastic bags consisted of 0.6% of the city’s litter before a local ban was enacted.

[14] What can be lost in the debate between bans, taxes and consumer choice at the checkout, is the fact that plastic shopping bags are fully recyclable, when disposed of properly.

[15] Still, a study conducted by Boustead Associates found that only 5.2% of plastic bags are recycled. …

[16] However, plastic bag recycling requires a different type of infrastructure than plastic bottles and containers. It’s been reported that when people put plastic bags in their curbside bin, it has the potential to clog machines at the recycling facilities.

[17] “The problem with plastic bags is that they are extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, to recycle,” Monroe said. “At municipality recycling facilities, plastic bags have to be removed because the lightweight thin film can impact the recycling process.” …

[18] Recycling plastic bags can be turned into raw materials for fencing, decking, building and construction products, shopping carts and new bags, according to the American Chemistry Council.

[19] Monroe points out that the 5% recycling of bags is still the current and, potentially, future reality.

[20] “There’s just a large number of bags available where there is no incentive really to recycle them,” she said. “In contrast when bag bans and fees are put in place, they show it’s working to reduce waste.” …

—Heather Caliendo excerpted and adapted from “The Economic Effect of Plastic Bag Bans” www.npr.com, February 6, 2013

1 green-washing — falsely claiming that a product is environmentally friendly