Extensive usage of non-biodegradable plastic shopping bags in retail

outlets

Szilvia Hosser – November 29, 2007 ESPM 4242

Problem description Background information Goals for policy proposal Existing programs worldwide, US,

Twin Cities Alternatives Evaluation criteria Proposed solution

Description of the problem

Plastic bags are polluting to the environment and the cost of

discarding them imposes high costs to society

Background information Plastic bag use in USA 100 billion annually

Less than 1% of USA plastic bags are currently being recycled (EPA)

Polluting to the environment

Lethal to animals

Un-recycled plastic bags go into littler stream

Collecting, and transporting to landfill represent high costs to society

Background information

Extensive use of fossil fuels for production and transportation

Interferes with state’s energy reduction efforts

Takes a long time to fully break down, are hard and costly to recycle

“Free” plastic bags are costly to the customers (incorporated into prices)

Cost to economy

BUT

Plastic bags are popular with consumers and retailers

Convenient Functional Cheap Hygienic Lightweight Easy to transport food and other products

Goals Reduction of non-biodegradable single-use plastic

bags used by customers in Minnesota in grocery stores (with that reduce the number of bags going into litter stream)

Achieve a long-term goal of customers using other types of bags (biodegradable, reusable, canvas)

Achieve environmental goals that is supported by the community, economically efficient and practical.

Existing programs in other countries, and US states

Voluntarily approach in Australia Ban in Bangladesh Ban, Taiwan Ban in Bombay, India Tax in Denmark Consumer levy in Hong Kong Levy program in the Republic of

Ireland Consumer levy, Italy Consumer levy, Northern Ireland Supplier levy, South Africa

San Francisco: The Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance (ban at supermarkets and chain pharmacies)

New Jersey: tax to the manufacture, wholesale, distribution and retail of ‘litter generating’ products.

Existing programs efforts in the Twin Cities

"It's in the Bag" program (2003): Recycling consumer and business plastic film

material. Bins at several collection points. Merrick, Inc. collects and sorts bags & Trex

Company recycles into wood-polymer material used for decking and railing (for homes).

Initiatives of retailers: ie. Target (offers biodegradable bags for a charge), Ikea (charge for bags), Mississippi Market etc. (1c rebate per unused bag).

AlternativesVoluntary approach

Voluntarily (consumer levy) programs with retail stores signing up

Manufacturing & purchase of plastic bags still continue, but likely to be lower

Highly dependent on the scale of retailer participation

Alternatives Supplier Levy

Taxing of producers and importers

Problem: Suppliers will likely to transfer the costs

coming from the higher tax to consumers Thus no direct impact on customers (no

awareness of problem, no incentive to change behavior, litter problem remains)

Difficulty in collection and enforcement (e.g. if supplier comes from out of state)

Alternatives Consumer Levy

Charging customers for using non-biodegradable plastic bags

The purchase of plastic bags still be allowed, but there would be a charge at the checkout-counters

Manufacturing & transporting the plastic bag waste to landfills remains but lower

Alternatives A complete ban

Total elimination of overall plastic bag use

Drastically reduces the demand for plastic bags Drastically reduces the number of plastic bags

manufactured / imported Plastic bag waste problem solved

Problem: Resistance by consumers and business by

restricting of choice

Evaluation criteria

Effectiveness

Social acceptability & Equity issues

Costs

Effectiveness

Voluntary approachExpected low reduction of plastic bag use demand,

waste (~50%)

Supplier levyScale of reduction depends on # of participants

Consumer levyHigher reduction of plastic bag use (~70%)Decrease in demand for disposable bag (~ 90%)

Ban~ 100% reduction

Voluntary approach Expected high acceptability from

retailers and customers alike Question equity among retailers

Supplier levy Expected supplier resistance Customers may not be aware of levy

(unless they are informed via education and / or media)

Social acceptability and equity issues I

Social acceptability and equity issues II

Consumer levyLow(er) initial acceptance by customers and

retailer alike: Customers used to convenience of ‘free’

shopping bags Retailers foresee they need to change their

operations

Ban Low social acceptability: creates resistance

Costs Voluntary (levy)

Consumers: lower than other options if not all retailers sign up

Retailers: structural changes: training, change facility, time (similar to ban and levy)

Supplier levy Consumers: passed on costs Retailers: none expected Suppliers: costs to comply initially but costs

are likely to be passed on to customers

Costs Consumer levy

Customers: high costs (~ 5 times higher than voluntary option)

Retailers: • Structural changes: time and money spent on training

employees, change facility (~ 1.5 times higher than voluntary)

• Slower operation expected esp. in the beginning Lower costs later as demand decreases Cost to stakeholder that needs to report

(supplier or retailer) Ban

Customers: high costs Retailers: high costs Administrative: high, local government, reporting

Evaluation

EffectivenessBan

Equity & social acceptability Voluntary effort

Consumer levy together with educating public Lowest costs

Voluntary option

Proposed solutionConsumer levy & education programs to

increase environmental awareness

Charging of 10-15c on use of plastic bags starting with grocery stores

Exceptions: bags for non-packed goods (e.g. fruit, vegetables, fresh meat etc)

Revenue to an environmental fund to support waste management, environmental & education programs, supporting materials

Fine those who not comply Enforced by a local authority Retailer needs to keep track and report sales

Consumer levy & educationAdvantages: Decreased demand for disposable bags

(~90%) thus less costs to produce, transport, & amount of litter reduced

Customer awareness high Consumers pay thus motivated to recycle

and reuse Socially acceptable with use of education

programs and promotion materials Encourages manufacturing reusable or/and

biodegradable, canvas bags

Consumer levy & education

Possible problems:

Lost convenience of ‘free’ bag Low income customers (they need to

convert to long-life bags right away to avoid charges)

Experience shows that demand for trash liners can increase

Questions?