Ban Bag Bust

A few years ago, a bunch of liberal cities began to ban plastic bags. They claimed would help save the Earth, cutting down on landfill use and eliminating a harm to wildlife. I was very skeptical for a variety of reasons.

Well, this is my shocked face:

In Austin, for example, a post-ban survey found that single-use plastic bags accounted for only 0.03 percent of the total litter collected in the city in 2015. Assuming the pre-ban rate was closer to the 0.12 percent in nearby Fort Worth, that marks a roughly 75 percent reduction of single-use plastic bags in Austin’s landfills.

But, as the Austin assessment pointedly notes, reducing the use of a product that’s harmful to the environment is no guarantee of a positive environmental outcome. Among the main environmental benefits of Austin’s ban was supposed to be a reduction in the amount of energy and raw materials used to manufacture the bags. To that end, the city encouraged residents to instead use reusable bags. Those bags have larger carbon footprints, due to the greater energy required to produce their stronger plastics, but the city figured the overall impact would be lower, as consumers got acquainted with the new, more durable product.

What the city didn’t foresee is that residents would start treating reusable bags like single-use bags. The volume of reusable plastic bags now turning up at the city’s recycling centers has become “nearly equivalent to the amount of all of the single use bags removed from the recycling stream as a result of the ordinance implemented in 2013,” according to the assessment. And those lightly used bags are landfill-bound, because recycling isn’t any more cost-effective for reusable plastic bags than the single-use variety.

Some of these issues could be addressed through the increased use of reusable canvas bags. But canvas is even more carbon intensive to produce than plastic; studies suggest consumers would need to use a single canvas bag around 130 times before they start achieving any net environmental benefit as compared with a single-use plastic bag. And, for some consumers, the higher price for canvas bags may be prohibitive, in any case.

That’s actually understating the case. Canvas bags have to be cleaned regularly. I previously noted a rise in ER admissions in cities that banned plastic bags because people were eating contaminated food:

This is something the environmentalists have never understood. People don’t do “bad” environmental things because they hate cute little fishies; they do it because it’s the least bad option facing them. So environmentalists, for example, ban styrofoam cups in favor of paper cups and then are shocked when it turns out paper cups cost more energy to produce and create more waste. They go on about food miles and then are blindsided when it turns out that flying in your lamb from New Zealand is better for the environment than growing it locally.

People dispose of grocery bags for a reason: to get rid of the dirt, bacteria, blood, etc. that comes off of raw food. This problem can be overcome by washing reusable bags. But … that cuts into the supposed environmental benefit. If you wash it every time, it would taken hundreds of uses before a reusable bag would match the environmental impact of a plastic bag.

Actually, is likely that canvas bags will never consume less energy than a plastic bag. This is of a piece with a larger effort in the environmental movement that is emphasizing recycling and composting, which are extremely expensive in terms of energy. By my math, that’s trading a problem we don’t have (a lack of landfill space) for a problem we do (global warming).

But the plastic bag ban was never about the environment, really. It was what one person called “brick in the toilet” environmentalism. It was about doing something even if that something has no tangible benefit. It was about making the public sacrifice some convenience because sacrificing convenience seems moral. Who cares if it works as long as you get everyone marching along to the government’s drum?

One of the things I’ve said for years about the environmentalist movement is that they need to decide what they want: style or substance. Do they actually want to improve the environment or do they want to look they’re improving it? We see, over and over again, environmentalists advocating policies that feel good but do harm: opposing nuclear power, “food miles”, “earth hours”, banning plastic bags. I think it’s clear that they’ve made their choice. If we are going to save the Earth, the ideas for doing it are going to have to come out of the conservative and libertarian movements.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    You forgot “environmentalists are generally stupid, poorly educated idealists with no concept of reality”

    That, and we all went to plastic bags to “save a tree” back in the 70’s, which the lumber companies just fucking shrugged at and planted some other tree crop to be harvested for sweet, sweet money.

    Thumb up 1

  2. Hal_10000 *

    That, and we all went to plastic bags to “save a tree” back in the 70’s, which the lumber companies just fucking shrugged at and planted some other tree crop to be harvested for sweet, sweet money.

    Yeah, the whole save a tree thing is weird.  When you use wood, you’re basically placing an order for a lumber company to plant a tree.  The only place clear-cutting usually takes places is … government land.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    One of the things I’ve said for years about the environmentalist movement is that they need to decide what they want: style or substance.

    The environmental movement doesn’t want either style or substance: they are nothing but a front for collectivist bullshit people would never accept otherwise. That’s why you get idiotic things like this where feelings trump facts (even the manufactured ones they use to push their shit).

    I have interacted with plenty of losers claiming to be environmentalists. My experience has practically always been that I was dealing with holier-than-thou collectivist dipshits that talked a mean talk, but never walk the walk. They expect others to do the heavy lifting. In this respect I have found that the great majority of self-identified environmentalists – especially amongst the movement’s leadership – share the same traits as their counterparts in the AGW priesthood. For example, they find no irony when they take rides in their private planes to functions where they tell the rest of us we should be giving them the power to enact idiotic policy that will do abso-fucking-lutely nothing to address the fake crisis they have invented, while moving the rest of us back into caves. I know plenty of hard core envornmentalists that can’t even be bothered to recycle or not throw their garbage out of their car windows.

    And as a FYI, I am an environmentalist and a conservationist. I actually put my money where my mouth is. But I don’t preach: I practice.

    Thumb up 0

  4. Seattle Outcast

    I’ve always found environmentalist and conservationist to actually be polar opposites of each other.  The environmentalist believes in human extinction (except for him and other correctly-thinking individuals) while the conservationist believes in being a good and considerate user of natural resources.

     

    Thumb up 0

  5. InsipiD

    In Austin, for example, a post-ban survey found that single-use plastic bags accounted for only 0.03 percent of the total litter collected in the city in 2015. Assuming the pre-ban rate was closer to the 0.12 percent in nearby Fort Worth, that marks a roughly 75 percent reduction of single-use plastic bags in Austin’s landfills.

    Whoa, there.  Big time fallacy.  Just because something constituted a certain percentage of litter doesn’t mean that it’s a similar percentage of trash.  Single use plastic bags are common litter because they practically float away, sometimes twisting in the breeze beautifully.  Also, are those percentages by weight, volume, or number of pieces?  The weight of plastic bags is usually practically nothing, but they can take up a good bit of volume with trapped air, and would number highly just based on what I’ve sometimes seen in parking lots or empty lots inside cities.

    It was about making the public sacrifice some convenience because sacrificing convenience seems moral.

    Of course, it’s really this.

    Thumb up 0