[This article has been corrected to reflect the fact that plastic bag recycling rates are between 5 percent and 10 percent. GreenBiz regrets the error.]
In the United States, the vast majority of cities and states have opted for a ban on plastic bags, often finding that any proposed “tax” is politically untenable and unpopular with retailers. Outside the United States, however, plastic bag taxes have been viewed as the business-friendly option, with retailers happy to pocket a percentage of the fees charged for single-use bags or to profit from increased sales of reusable bags.
On the environmental front, the jury is still out as to whether bans or taxes are more effective in the reduction of plastic bag usage and littering, but a recent study of the plastic bag tax in Wales can be seen as a win for tax proponents. It shows a 96 percent reduction in the usage of plastic bags since the tax was introduced in October 2011.
Ireland was similarly successful with its bag tax, instituted in 2002, which delivered a reported 90 percent reduction in plastic bag usage within a few months of its inception. Based on the success of the Irish and Welsh bag taxes, Northern Ireland is introducing a tax next April and Scotland recently proposed a tax as well.
Bag taxes have been successful elsewhere in Europe, and in India and China as well. “Hong Kong has taxed plastic bags for quite a few years and the policy has proven to have virtually no impact to retail business,” says Jason Chan, a Hong Kong native and consultant with International Enterprise Singapore (Singapore’s trade development board). “Consumers won't refrain from shopping at their favorite retailer just because of the innocent shopping bags policy and certain retailers started selling environmental friendly recyclable foldable shopping bags.”
San Francisco—the first city in the United States to ban single-use plastic bags—started out wanting to tax them. A proposed 17-cent tax on plastic bags was declared illegal, and so the city moved to ban them instead. That set a precedent for the rest of the state and, eventually, the country. In California, where a new municipal bag ban is seemingly passed every month, the latest round of bans tend to include a fee imposed on paper bags as well.
The inclusion of paper bags is a response to various lawsuits against California plastic bag bans. The lawsuits, brought by plastic bag proponents, sought to use an aspect of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) – namely that no piece of environmental legislation have unintended negative impacts (in this case, a ban on plastic bags could increase the use of paper bags, thereby harming the environment) – to repeal bag bans.
Photo of plastic bags provided by Thorsten Rust via Shutterstock
Next page: One city that bucked the ban trend














Well, to be frank, me being a
Well, to be frank, me being a eco conscious person, I would personally be comfortable having gotten rid of plastic, but I guess rightly mentioned in some of the comments above, I feel there is a serious need to plan for the plastic that is already there and is getting thrown away and wasted. Yes, there is a lot of awareness going on at the minute across the globe regarding harmful effects but you what about the ones that are already existing? Should we not use them and recycle?
I see both the sides. Yes,
I see both the sides. Yes, there are plastics that are harmful, no doubt, but there are a lot of companies that are trying to recycle them and make better use of them than just let them go to landfill. I think emphasis should be given to promote those companies.
I agree with the comments
I agree with the comments above. I guess logically a supply and demand equation. If there is no supply, there would be no demand. But would this be possible? I guess some of the multi national companies are relying on plastic as their source of revenue and I guess people are so used to using plastic that it'd be difficult for them if it is wiped out. That's my personal thought though.
I agree with the comments
I agree with the comments above. I guess logically a supply and demand equation. If there is no supply, there would be no demand. But would this be possible? I guess some of the multi national companies are relying on plastic as their source of revenue and I guess people are so used to using plastic that it'd be difficult for them if it is wiped out. That's my personal thought though.
I agree with David. I guess
I agree with David. I guess there would be consumers as long as there are suppliers. If there are no suppliers, consumers would automatically start for looking for alternatives. So, it would solve the problem rather than just covering it up.
Hi Amy, Thanks for this
Hi Amy, Thanks for this article. Personally speaking I feel ban would be the best solution for plastics but I guess people are so used to using plastic that the just cannot see a day where plastic is not used. I guess implementing higher taxes would definitely reduce the use of plastic gradually as the suppliers (supermarkets and stuff) would be more conscious in using and people would gradually tend to get used to it rather than seeing a sudden change.
It is in most situations
It is in most situations beenhermes totes hermes replica basic basic principle for producing all plays for biggest also to the feasible bare minimum amount concerns much more compared to possible customers.Read more hermes product information in Hermes Kelly 32
Hi Amy, This article is a
Hi Amy,
This article is a good assessment of the ban/tax question. However, the most enlightening aspect of the article is near the end, when you remind people that recycling is also a viable option. Why is it that we believe people can remember to bring their reusable bags back to the store (despite the risk of bacteria and disease from spilled food), but they can't remember to bring back bags for recycling?
That said, the debate continues to ignore the fact that we can solve this problem with new technology, just as our country has solved many issues in the past. Photodegradable bags, such as ECOgrade Bags from GXT Green, are a solution that addresses the issues you raised, without any inconvenience to the consumer, nor extra cost to the retailer (they cost about the same as plastic bags). These bags use less energy to make, 50% less plastic resin, are safe for the recycle chain, and if littered, they degrade to a non-toxic residue within 240 days of exposure to sunlight, minimizing risk to wildlife. Retailers using ECOgrade can solve the problems raised by the environmentalists, without legislating a burden on consumers and businesses. Doesn't this sound like a better solution?
Hi Ed~ With all due respect,
Hi Ed~
With all due respect, you said the bags degrade with "240 days with exposure to sunlight". That doesn't seem much better than a regular plastic bag that will eventually breakdown into micro plastic pieces itself. 240 days is still quite a long time to be floating around and can certainly harm animals within that time frame.
My vote is taxation and not bans. Possibly even use those ECO bags you mention, but still tax them. The retailers are still paying for them and we all get that cost passed on to us anyway. There is no reason that people can't develope their own way to remember their own bags and wash them when needed. If they get sick of paying the tax each time they visit a store, they'll figure it out. There are a ton of great quality options out there and there are practically free reusable bags everywhere.
Hi Holly, Just to clarify the
Hi Holly,
Just to clarify the facts. Normal plastic bags take about 400 years to degrade. There is a huge difference. ECOgrade actually starts to break apart in about 40 days, at which point the risk to wildlife is minimized. They are totally degradeded within 240 days. You can see the visuals at http://www.gxtgreen.com/page/menu_3/12905.html. Feel free to reach out with any other questions. -Ed