GOOD

Entertaining an Argument Against the Plastic Bag Ban


California is considering banning the single-use plastic bag from grocery stores (and adopting a 5-cent charge for paper bags). The legislation, which looks likely to pass, is designed to reduce the amount of plastic litter we have to deal with.

But not everyone's a fan. In a piece in the Los Angeles Times, Peter Grande argues that the plastic bag ban would be a job-killer and would only push more people towards paper bags, which are even worse from an environmental perspective. And, he tells us, "As the president of a plastic bag manufacturer in Los Angeles County, I know all about this issue."


His first point is that the ban would have adverse economic effects:

At my factory alone, 200 people will lose good-paying jobs almost immediately. This comes at a time when our state budget is running a $19-billion deficit and when our state economy has an unemployment rate higher than 12%.

I'm not buying this argument. Two hundred jobs is not a huge number. And there are economic benefits to the legislation, too. Proponents say it could save a chunk of the $25 million that goes towards litter cleanup in the state and the charge on paper bags will certainly generate some revenue. It's totally possible that those benefits outweigh any economic costs.

Moreover, if you look at the website for Grande's company you'll see that Command Packaging makes many different bags. They make restaurant takeout bags and reusable bags and bags for home use. None of those would be affected by the ban. Command Packaging would just have to phase out the super-cheap plastic grocery bag.

His second point is about the environmental impact:

The goal of the bill may be to reduce first-use bags, but the net effect is simply a replacement of plastic bags with paper bags. And that's bad news for anyone who cares about the environment. An Environmental Impact Report by Los Angeles County acknowledges that if plastic bags are banned, 85% of consumers would switch to paper bags instead of reusable bags. We have seen this to be true in places where plastic bags have been eliminated, including San Francisco, Whole Foods and Trader Joe's. And what would this switch to paper bags mean for global warming? According to the figures in the report, 85% of Californians switching to paper bags would be the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of between 250,000 and 550,000 more cars on the road every year.

Here he may have a point. Paper bags are significantly worse, and if it's true that 85 percent of people switch to paper (I can't find the Environmental Impact Report he's referring to) the net environmental effect of the ban might well be negative.

The problem, of course, is that if plastic bags are banned and a paper bag costs 5 cents, then paper has a strong relative appeal to consumers. But the solution is not, as Grande says, to "bag the ban" and stick with a status quo in which both paper and plastic bags are essentially free. The solution is to ratchet the price for paper bags up towards their true cost, externalities included, or make them part of the ban, so that there's a bigger incentive to remember a reusable bag. Grande doesn't advocate for that, though, because he runs a plastic bag company.

Image: Escalator, a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (2.0) image from bredgur's photostream

Articles
via International Monetary Fund / Flickr and Streetsblog Denver / Flickr

Seventeen-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg made a dramatic speech Tuesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

In her address, she called for a public and private sector divestment from fossil fuel companies

"Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels. We don't want these things done by 2050, or 2030 or even 2021 — we want this done now," she said.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin mocked the teenager on Thursday during a press briefing in Davos.

Keep Reading
The Planet

Even though marathon running is on the decline, half a million people signed up to participate in the 2020 London Marathon. It seems wild that someone would voluntarily sign up to run 26.2 miles, but those half a million people might actually be on to something. A new study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that running a marathon can help reverse signs of aging.

Researchers at Barts and University College London looked at 138 first-time marathon runners between the ages of 21 and 69. "We wanted to look at novice athletes. We didn't include people who said they ran for more than two hours a week," Dr. Charlotte Manisty, the study's senior author and cardiologist at University College London, said per CNN.

Keep Reading
via David Leavitt / Twitter and RealTargetTori / Twitter

Last Friday, GOOD reported on an infuriating incident that went down at a Massachusetts Target.

A Target manager who's come to be known as "Target Tori," was harassed by Twitter troll David Leavitt for not selling him an $89 Oral-B Pro 5000 toothbrush for a penny.

He describes himself as a "multimedia journalist who has worked for CBS, AXS, Yahoo, and others."

Keep Reading
Communities