LA Times: CA Plastic Bag Ban increases Total Plastic Use

[reymann]

there's a couple of legislators that want to push to make california a bagless state to fix the plastic bag issue. we'll see if this ever reaches the floor.

[storewanderer]

there's a couple of legislators that want to push to make california a bagless state to fix the plastic bag issue. we'll see if this ever reaches the floor.

It will all come down to if UFCW takes an opposing position on the legislation.

The current legislation initially failed as UFCW opposed it. They reached some kind of backroom deal with Safeway and then agreed to support it so it passed on second reading/hearing.

[HCal]

Several places outside the US are not the US. The consumer behavior in the US is much different than other countries. In Australia where they have pushed this policy most/all of the produce is wrapped in plastic containers or foam/plastic trays and shrink wrapped, for example. Also just because it happens in several other countries doesn't mean it is actually working in those countries either. It doesn't mean it is actually helping the environment in those countries either.

I've heard "America is just different!" as justifications for everything for lack of universal health care to mass shootings. We really need to start learning from countries that have figured these things out. There is no fundamental reason why Americans cannot or will not remember to use reusable bags. It's just a mix of disinterest and laziness, which can easily be fixed with the proper incentive structure.

There is a segment of consumers that is legally (foodstamp customers) or functionally (online pick up orders) using new store provided bags every time they shop. Beyond that there is a segment of customers who doesn't want to use reusable bags due to sanitation concerns, forgetting them, being homeless and having nowhere for reusable bags, etc.

My personal opinion is that the exemption for foodstamp customers should be abolished. They can easily reuse bags if they want to, and if they can't, a few cents isn't much of a financial burden. Pick up orders are trickier but there are probably ways around that too. I've seen some places with reusable crates, but that may not be scalable.

So at this point the people pushing these rules need to be honest with themselves and understand not everyone shopping is going to use reusable bags. So at that point you go back to the thin bags and you put a fee on the bags. This way those who do use store bags every time get a bag with the least amount of plastic. Meanwhile the fee remains in order to discourage over use, etc. Also in a way fee would go up this way because the thin bags do not hold as much as the super thick ones, so the customer who today pays .10 for a super thick bag and squeezes everything into it, would now need 3 thin bags, and be paying .30. Also those 3 thin bags in total equal less than half the plastic of a super thick bag, so the plastic waste would still decline under that scenario.

The issue with the thin bags is the litter. The thicker bags don't blow away and end up on the streets or in parks or wherever, at least to the same extent that the thin ones do. To those who may not care about abstract ideas like climate change, this is one visible and tangible benefit.

I don't know CA politics and how exactly this works for this law given how it was passed. Given that the law was passed through the referendum process, can the lawmakers even modify the 10 cent fee on their own (without putting it out to a public vote)? Can they modify the law to get rid of the super thick plastic bags (without putting it out for a public vote)? In Nevada if a law passes by way of a ballot measure (has to go through 2 consecutive ballots and have 2/3 voter approval; this is how tax increases can occur, how abortion is codified into the state constitution since the 90's, etc.) and someone wants to change it, it has to go through that same 2 ballots/ 2/3 voter approval thing again.

In CA, the law wasn't passed through the referendum process. It was passed as a normal law, and then the industry tried to convince the voters to repeal it, but failed. So the law can be modified by the legislature on its own. I think that at the least, the fee should have been indexed to inflation. That might have made it 12 cents by now

[pseudo3d]

I've heard "America is just different!" as justifications for everything for lack of universal health care to mass shootings. We really need to start learning from countries that have figured these things out. There is no fundamental reason why Americans cannot or will not remember to use reusable bags. It's just a mix of disinterest and laziness, which can easily be fixed with the proper incentive structure.

He pointed out that Australia does things like shrink-wrap produce and other items which creates more waste, but you blew right through that. Besides, a poor justification doesn't mean there is no argument.

The issue with the thin bags is the litter. The thicker bags don't blow away and end up on the streets or in parks or wherever, at least to the same extent that the thin ones do. To those who may not care about abstract ideas like climate change, this is one visible and tangible benefit.

I think that the litter issue doesn't have a lot of standing especially when you think about all the disposable mask litter in the last few years. You could argue that the masks had a health benefit, but plastic bags do help reduce the chance for food sickness and other bacteria, as well, since reusable bags are rarely washed and are know to harbor bacteria.

[storewanderer]

Actually on this topic, the US really is different. US per capita consumer spending is far higher than other countries. That is different.

The US economy is built on consumption. You could say over consumption. It is easy for some Euro consumer who hardly buys anything to use a reusable bag or two. But for the US consumer who is often buying a lot at once and heavily impulse buys, it is simply not working out with these reusable bags. Customers don't have enough of them, forget them, etc.

With California having some of the highest grocery prices in the US, to impose a 25 cent bag fee on customers using food stamps or WIC is not right. This fee could easily total up to $2 in a single transaction. These customers typically work long hours at low wage jobs, have kids, live in small apartments with no washing machine, or share houses with other families. They are not so privileged as the progressive environmentalists pushing bag bans who live in a 2,500 square foot home on the coast or in a gated community with luxury appliances and the time and facilities to properly clean and sanitize reusable bags.


Also there is no proof these bag bans in other countries that "get it right" even help the environment based on the massive environmental impact of cotton cloth reusable bags that causes the same environment impact as thousands of thin bags.

Thin bags and litter are not a bag problem. That is a problem with the trash collection groups who do not properly empty the trash fully into their truck or with citizens who litter. Litter is another issue. That is a people problem.

Also there is nothing legally stopping any retailer from increasing the bag fee above 10 cents if they want to. They can charge whatever they want. But in my experience often they don't even charge the 10 cents.

These bag bans that call for super thick plastic bags are a failed policy and have caused nothing but problems. They've made it easier for shoplifters, increased costs to consumers, created checkout inefficiencies, and created more plastic waste.

[HCal]

He pointed out that Australia does things like shrink-wrap produce and other items which creates more waste, but you blew right through that. Besides, a poor justification doesn't mean there is no argument.

I blew right through it because it was off topic. Of course product packaging varies between countries. That has nothing to do with shopping habits as they pertain to bringing reusable bags.

I think that the litter issue doesn't have a lot of standing especially when you think about all the disposable mask litter in the last few years. You could argue that the masks had a health benefit, but plastic bags do help reduce the chance for food sickness and other bacteria, as well, since reusable bags are rarely washed and are know to harbor bacteria.

That's called "whataboutism", the idea that we shouldn't address a problem simply because another related problem would still exist. Masks may be a problem when it comes to litter, but there's no reason we can't address both. Masks may actually be the lesser of our worries, as universal mask mandates are gone and unlikely to return in the foreseeable future.

[storewanderer]

I blew right through it because it was off topic. Of course product packaging varies between countries. That has nothing to do with shopping habits as they pertain to bringing reusable bags.


That's called "whataboutism", the idea that we shouldn't address a problem simply because another related problem would still exist. Masks may be a problem when it comes to litter, but there's no reason we can't address both. Masks may actually be the lesser of our worries, as universal mask mandates are gone and unlikely to return in the foreseeable future.

Actually product packaging has everything to do with shopping habits as they pertain to reusable bags (or no bags at all). In an environment with more prepackaged/multi packed/vac packed items, there is significant excess plastic waste created from that packaging. Many of the countries where supermarkets prepackage items in that manner are the ones who have those "successful" plastic bag bans you refer to. If a customer is buying yogurt and canned vegetables in one of those countries it is very likely the yogurt is bundled together in a pack of 6 small cups and the canned vegetables are bundled together in a multi pack of 4 to 6 cans. In that scenario it is very easy for a customer to use no bags due to just two "bunched together" items. But there is still excess plastic waste due to the bundling together of the products. In the US where that yogurt will be 6 loose cups and the vegetables will be 4-6 loose cans, no bag is not workable, but adding a thin plastic bag to that transaction will create less waste than the "bundling" packaging being used in some other country. Adding a super thick plastic bag as is done in California or Oregon etc. that these US environmental groups have lobbied toward blows everything out of the water and is the absolute worst possible thing and does nothing but causes plastic waste to completely skyrocket.

For instance the above is why Costco has no bags. Everything is big and bundled together (often in a bunch of plastic).

Again HCal: This plastic bag ban policy is a complete failure. The alternatives are worse for the environment than the thin bags. For a variety of reasons many consumers are not interested or not able to use reusable bags. There are major sanitation concerns surrounding reusable bags. Look at the questionable personal hygiene of many folks shopping; if people can't maintain proper personal hygiene do you think they are going to somehow maintain proper hygiene for their bags? Absolutely not. These policies adding in a bag fee and super thick "reusable plastic bags" have not accomplished their intended goal of reducing plastic waste, and need to be thrown out. Paper bags are not a viable option as the manufacturing capacity is not able to keep up (and paper bag cost has skyrocketed thanks to these bag related regulations). In the end the consumer and the environment are a big loser. I've been saying this for years now. LA Times article basically repeated everything I've been saying.

[HCal]

Actually product packaging has everything to do with shopping habits as they pertain to reusable bags (or no bags at all). In an environment with more prepackaged/multi packed/vac packed items, there is significant excess plastic waste created from that packaging. Many of the countries where supermarkets prepackage items in that manner are the ones who have those "successful" plastic bag bans you refer to. If a customer is buying yogurt and canned vegetables in one of those countries it is very likely the yogurt is bundled together in a pack of 6 small cups and the canned vegetables are bundled together in a multi pack of 4 to 6 cans. In that scenario it is very easy for a customer to use no bags due to just two "bunched together" items. But there is still excess plastic waste due to the bundling together of the products. In the US where that yogurt will be 6 loose cups and the vegetables will be 4-6 loose cans, no bag is not workable, but adding a thin plastic bag to that transaction will create less waste than the "bundling" packaging being used in some other country. Adding a super thick plastic bag as is done in California or Oregon etc. that these US environmental groups have lobbied toward blows everything out of the water and is the absolute worst possible thing and does nothing but causes plastic waste to completely skyrocket.

For instance the above is why Costco has no bags. Everything is big and bundled together (often in a bunch of plastic).

I've been to several supermarkets all over Europe and Australia, and can assure you that they sell yogurt and canned vegetables individually just like here. They may have some things in multi-packs, but so do we. A couple decades ago, these places all had single-use plastic bags just like the US. I don't think there is any significant difference.

Again HCal: This plastic bag ban policy is a complete failure. The alternatives are worse for the environment than the thin bags. For a variety of reasons many consumers are not interested or not able to use reusable bags. There are major sanitation concerns surrounding reusable bags. Look at the questionable personal hygiene of many folks shopping; if people can't maintain proper personal hygiene do you think they are going to somehow maintain proper hygiene for their bags? Absolutely not. These policies adding in a bag fee and super thick "reusable plastic bags" have not accomplished their intended goal of reducing plastic waste, and need to be thrown out. Paper bags are not a viable option as the manufacturing capacity is not able to keep up (and paper bag cost has skyrocketed thanks to these bag related regulations). In the end the consumer and the environment are a big loser. I've been saying this for years now. LA Times article basically repeated everything I've been saying.

I think we both agree that the current policy is a failure, and the superthick "reusable" bags have to go. They probably should never have existed as they are clearly engineered to skirt the law. But the other stuff is just excuses. People will have to figure out how to rinse a bag. Manufacturers can figure out the supply chain for paper bags. Necessity is the mother of invention.

I think the simplest thing for CA and OR to do is just ban the superthick plastic bags in addition to the thin ones. Then let the market sort it out.

[storewanderer]

I've been to several supermarkets all over Europe and Australia, and can assure you that they sell yogurt and canned vegetables individually just like here. They may have some things in multi-packs, but so do we. A couple decades ago, these places all had single-use plastic bags just like the US. I don't think there is any significant difference.



I think we both agree that the current policy is a failure, and the superthick "reusable" bags have to go. They probably should never have existed as they are clearly engineered to skirt the law. But the other stuff is just excuses. People will have to figure out the sanitation. Manufacturers can figure out the supply chain for paper bags. Necessity is the mother of invention.

I think the simplest thing for CA and OR to do is just ban the superthick plastic bags in addition to the thin ones. Then let the market sort it out.

Those overseas supermarkets sell far fewer SKUs of single unit products like that (same in Canada in some categories but not all). They really push multi packs harder. Also on produce they push prepackaged/multi pack (in plastic..) produce as well in some of those countries.

The super thick plastic bags weren't engineered to skirt the law- it was the only way they got a couple of politicians in CA to agree to sponsor the ban in the first place. This was because there was a plastic bag factory in the district of those politicians. One of them has a leadership position in the current administration at the Federal level now but that is irrelevant. A company that put a ton of money behind the bag ban was the one who came up with the super thick plastic bags that are the oddly shaped ones (I think Stater still uses them?) and they were a huge proponent of the law. They thought they would make a ton of money selling those bags, and they did, in the early years, until many chains quit using those bags because they cost too much, were awkwardly shaped (useless as a trash bag too), etc.

What amazes me is environmentalist groups are out there pushing these super thick plastic bags somehow as something that is good for the environment. Or entire chains like Sprouts who have this super thick plastic bag (no paper bags- Sprouts claims paper bags are worse for the environment) policy/10 cent fee policy nationwide.

As far as the paper bags go you are incorrect, the market has not worked itself out. Paper bag prices have skyrocketed as I said some small grocery chains are being charged 26 cents per paper bag if they want bags with their name printed on them and those are not even the full size paper bags (like Whole Foods uses) but the "shorter" ones commonly seen in CA grocers (like Trader Joe's uses) on the rare occasion the main grocers in CA even have paper bags. Paper bag production is somewhat difficult and takes a lot of energy and water/pulp. The WA bag ban was passed with funding for more paper bag factories; have any new paper bag factories opened in WA? I don't think so... Also when some bans rolled out initially some grocery chains were importing paper bags from China, Vietnam, and other places. For whatever reason that didn't work out either and those bags are mostly gone (some fast foods may still be using the ones from China). Those chains too are just pushing heavily the super thick plastic bags.

The only solution is to eliminate the bans entirely or go back to the thin plastic bags and attach the 10 cent fee to those. This program has been a miserable failure. Maybe some chains will continue the bag ban/bag fee program and that is fine, that is between them and their customers.

[BillyGr]

Manufacturers can figure out the supply chain for paper bags. Necessity is the mother of invention.

As far as the paper bags go you are incorrect, the market has not worked itself out. Paper bag prices have skyrocketed as I said some small grocery chains are being charged 26 cents per paper bag if they want bags with their name printed on them and those are not even the full size paper bags (like Whole Foods uses) but the "shorter" ones commonly seen in CA grocers (like Trader Joe's uses) on the rare occasion the main grocers in CA even have paper bags. Paper bag production is somewhat difficult and takes a lot of energy and water/pulp. The WA bag ban was passed with funding for more paper bag factories; have any new paper bag factories opened in WA? I don't think so... Also when some bans rolled out initially some grocery chains were importing paper bags from China, Vietnam, and other places. For whatever reason that didn't work out either and those bags are mostly gone (some fast foods may still be using the ones from China). Those chains too are just pushing heavily the super thick plastic bags.

It seems like HCal said that they CAN figure it out, not that they HAVE figured it out as of yet.

They are likely just taking advantage and getting more for their products, as long as chains are willing/able to buy them and they can make as many as are being sold.

If that demand goes higher (more states do something like this), then they would see that they can't supply enough and then invest in making larger facilities.

I suspect those CA stores not having paper bags is just that they have an option (these thicker plastic ones) - every store I've seen in NY has paper bags available regularly, even the cheap ones like Dollar Tree/General/Family that don't even charge for them when not required to. Ocean State (closeout type stores, similar to a Big Lots) even has full sized printed ones and a couple smaller sizes for minor purchases.