> Single-use plastic bags pose outsized problems in the form of visual pollution on the landscape -- South Africans joke that plastic bags are their "national flower," due to their propensity to hang on branches -- and damage and delays at high-tech recycling centers. (Reusable bags usually aren't eligible for recycling, but when they end up at centers by mistake, they often wrap around and jam moving equipment.) Single-use bags can also pose health hazards to wildlife and livestock -- during a recent trip to Dubai, I heard a plastic recycler lament that ranched camels frequently die from ingesting the plastic bags that are constantly catching flight in the desert wind -- and even when they do wind up at landfills, they take centuries to decompose.
If the desirable outcome is to reduce overall usage of plastic bags then banning them is absolutely the right decision.
The evidence shows that people don't value reusable bags highly enough. Which is understandable because stores only charge 10 cents for them (at least in the Bay Area). The solution isn't to repeal the ban: it's to raise the mandated price of reusable bags to something like $5. Tax undesirable behavior and it will go down.
>Estimates indicate that, for adults, the association between cigarette taxes and either smoking participation or smoking intensity is negative, small and not usually statistically significant. Our evidence suggests that increases in cigarette taxes are associated with small decreases in cigarette consumption and that it will take sizable tax increases, on the order of 100%, to decrease adult smoking by as much as 5%.
So... your link agrees with what jogjayr is saying? It's just saying that a trivial level of taxes on a relatively cheap item won't do anything, which I don't think surprises anyone.
Australia has near-punitive levels of tax on cigarettes, and smoking levels have dropped considerable over the past few decades. About 50% of the price of a pack of cigarettes is tax here, which marries up with your quote. Taxes aren't the only thing making smoking rates drop here, but among the smokers I know, most of them have reduced their rates simply due to the expense.
>So... your link agrees with what jogjayr is saying?
... yes.
And I believe the "smoking tax" punishes the poor.
You haven't shown that it doesn't; I haven't shown that it does. What we've established is that taxing smoking doesn't stop smokers--Until it's too high a cost to pay. For the poor.
If you think reducing from two packs a day to one and a half packs is a meaningful reduction, enjoy the sensation. That's all you're getting. Savor it.
s/my number/your number/ and the same people are getting sick and dying. They're just paying more for the privilege.
> There's an argument to be made that trying to tax undesirable behaviors is a form of corruption.
Yes there certainly can. I won't make it though; I like looking at a plastic-free environment myself.
> If you want to change other peoples behavior I have trouble supporting something that unfairly penalizes the poor.
How exactly does a plastic bag ban unfairly penalize the poor?
I could make the argument that by reducing city trash and recycling costs, street sweeping costs and the store's costs in providing the bags, the poor actually benefit overall. Not to mention it's poor neighborhoods, which typically have more littering, that potentially stand to benefit more from less waste. Rich neighborhoods can afford to pay for street cleaning out of pocket if the city doesn't come through; poor ones can't.
EDIT:
When you get to the bottom of it, plastic bags impose a negative externality on taxpayers (in the form of higher city trash costs), businesses (more littering makes the city less visually appealing) and animals (which get trapped in plastic bags). People are free to use plastic bags, but there should be a cost associated with all the negative consequences of this behavior to everyone else.
I meant the mandated minimum price of a reusable bag _at the counter_ should be $5 (a number I pulled out of the air, with little thought). You do realize though, that it's otherwise possible to buy a reusable bag for less than $5 right? (Amazon shows me a pack of 10 for $12, or $1.20/bag).
Even most grocery stores sell reusable bags for $1-2 apiece; so in the overwhelming majority of scenarios people would be paying more than 10 cents but less than the punitive $5. And by consciously buying a bag (instead of just saying "Yeah, I'll pay 10 cents for a bag" at the counter), people might be less likely to throw it out.
And yet, people will occasionally get "caught out" at a grocery store needing to buy something without having their bag supply with them.
When that happens to me and you whack me for $5, I grimace a little, but basically don't care and my kids don't go hungry. If you whack someone for $5 who is poor and buying groceries with an EBT card, they're putting a gallon of milk back on the shelf to afford the bag. Or, they could ride the bus home, get their bags, ride the bus back, buy their stuff, and avoid the $4 fine ($1 for the bag and $4 for the convenience fine) at the cost of maybe an hour of their limited free time.
That's how it hurts the poor. That you or I could buy 10 bags for $12 and keep them in the trunk of our car so we always have them doesn't help the carless.
You asked how exactly it hurt the poor and I answered that question. I didn't come here spoiling for a fight over the issue.
How exactly does a plastic bag ban unfairly penalize the poor?
The alternatives are not free. In SF, at least, your alternatives are to buy a heavy-duty reusable bag, or spend 10c per paper bag when checking out. 10c is a trivial thing to pay for most people, but when you're poor, it can matter.
Well, that makes sense. But then, the cost of the bag should roughly reflect the cost of all these external harms from using them. What if it turns out that the cost is something like 10c a bag? That seems like a plausible number to me. It's certainly nowhere near $5 a bag, taxes and fees for street cleaning and parks aren't anywhere in that ballpark. In which case, we've already discovered that's not enough to eliminate the use of the bags (it does reduce it).
Maybe not. It just needs to be high enough to discourage most bag throwing. Maybe that number is $2 instead of $5. Maybe instead of just offering you a bag at the counter and tacking it on to your bill, they make you go to the bag aisle and bring back a bag that you have to consciously buy (it has a barcode and they scan it); so it's a cost in annoyance rather than money.
> taxes and fees for street cleaning and parks aren't anywhere in that ballpark
It's not just street cleaning and parks. You're discounting trash collection, recycling and landfill costs. The costs of the city being less attractive (I don't know if it can be measured, but there certainly is a cost). The cost to wildlife and the oceans. Do all these add up to $5 a bag? I don't know. Would a $<punitive_number>/bag fee eliminate most of these costs? Probably. Could someone more creative than myself come up with even better ideas? Definitely.
>There's an argument to be made that trying to tax undesirable behaviors is a form of corruption.
I've always wondered if you could avoid the perverse incentive created by such fines by having the levied amount removed from the economy (i.e. literally destroy the money). There's the fine would still discourage the undesirable behavior, but not incentivize the corruptive behavior.
> The evidence shows that people don't value reusable bags highly enough.
This is an incomplete thought. The more complete thought is: "The evidence shows that people don't value reusable bags as highly as I think they ought to due to my own personal preferences."
> The evidence shows that people don't value reusable bags highly enough
to not throw them out without a second thought.
> due to my own personal preferences
I'm going ignore the snarky tone and address the underlying idea: it's not just my own personal preferences. Clogged drainage systems (see Mumbai, India), visual pollution, injury to wildlife, increased taxpayer costs for trash and recyling; all are due to plastic bags. These are things that affect more than just me: they affect you too, they affect everyone. Plastic bags; their use and disposal aren't things that happen in isolation. Plastic is (effectively) forever. It will remain here long after you or I and our descendants are gone, choking the life out of some lake or pond.
It's not snark. I'm very serious: you're omitting key details in your claims. Your prose suggests something as a fact, when in actuality, it's just your own personal valuation. It suits your claim to state things as if they were facts because it grants you authority. I'm calling you out on it.
> These are things that affect more than just me
You're moving the goal post. I don't disagree that the existence of plastic bags doesn't affect me or others. I'm contesting that their valuation level is some known fact that your prose suggests you're privy to.
> to not throw them out without a second thought.
Everyone I know (including myself) saves their plastic bags for reuse. I've been using the same plastic bag to bring my lunch to work since last November!
> Your prose suggests something as a fact, when in actuality, it's just your own personal valuation
I guess I assumed when people throw something out, they don't value it sufficiently highly. That's obviously why you see all those gold watches and diamond rings in the trash every day. </sarcasm> (I'm obviously not suggesting reusable bags are worth the same as a gold watch)
Perhaps I should have phrased it as "The evidence suggests" instead of "shows". Maybe the definitiveness of my statement is what has rubbed you the wrong way. I don't know. There could be other reasons why people throw out reusable bags too: lack of storage space, lack of knowledge that they're reusable, not enough time to think about it/need to clean up in a hurry.
> Everyone I know (including myself) saves their plastic bags for reuse. I've been using the same plastic bag to bring my lunch to work since last November!
I personally think that's very admirable and applaud you for it (totally serious here). I wish more people did the same as you. Not everyone does it and in some circles, storing plastic bags from the store in a drawer marks you out as some sort of frugal weirdo.
> I guess I assumed when people throw something out, they don't value it sufficiently highly.
When people throw something out, they are valuing the thing as disposable trash more than the thing staying around. This isn't to say that this valuation is "right" or "wrong," which is context that your comment is adding. Specifically, the context is, "the valuation is wrong because it doesn't achieve some other goal that I care about." The labeling of the valuation as wrong and implying it is generally known is what I'm objecting to.
> Not everyone does it and in some circles, storing plastic bags from the store in a drawer marks you out as some sort of frugal weirdo.
Weird. It's totally normal where I come from (Massachusetts), to the point of you can walk into someone's house and ask, "Where do you keep your plastic bags?"
I don't think it's particularly admirable IMO. It's just convenient. :-)
> The labeling of the valuation as wrong and implying it is generally known is what I'm objecting to.
I was saying that the valuation is not high enough to keep people from throwing out reusable bags (ie what you said: "disposable trash"). I didn't use the word "wrong" in any of my comments and I don't think I implied it either. What I (thought I) was implying is that the low perceived value of reusable bags was hurting the city's goal (note: not "my goal", which I also never said, though yeah I support it) of reducing the use of plastic.
Clearly you're taking issue with what you assumed was the subtext of my comment. I can't help that. The most I can do is clarify.
My take on the article is that it was the encouraging the use of recyclable plastic bags that's the problem. Various towns and retailers around Australia followed the same approach in banning plastic bags, replacing them with 'environmentally friendly' bags [1] which appear less disposable than plastic bags, so people don't get in the mindset that they should throw them out.
From someone who lives in Austin, the problem isn't the bag ban. It's the low impact of skirting around it. As another commenter mentioned, the only major retailer that sells reusable plastic bags in Austin is HEB. And HEB does move a very significant percentage of all groceries in Austin.
Whole foods, Randalls, Sprouts, Fiesta and Walmart all use paper bags. If HEB either switched to paper or charged more for each plastic bag this story wouldn't exist.
That's what I got from this story as well - the problem isn't that Austin is trying to solve the plastic bag issue, it's that Austin is going about it the wrong way. The article seems to dance around that but settles on just the ban itself.
I also live in Austin and have supported the plastic ban. HEB is almost single-handedly undercutting the effectiveness of the ban by selling cheap "reusable" plastic bags at checkout for the majority (at least in my experience) of people who don't bring their own. If they joined the rest of Austin grocers and instead sold paper bags, it would eliminate most of the remaining plastic bag litter. Increasing the price of these bags - coupled with making the canvas bags available for SNAP participants if they aren't already - may also start to change behavior.
Plenty of other places have bag bans, if they have not had similar problems, this suggests that differences between Austin and the other places, in terms of the details of the band or relevant context, should be examined to understand why Austin's ban had the undesired results.
But, a single failure in one of many implementations of the idea is not a reason to abandon the idea.
Strangely, the article omits mention of paper bags, which, in the context of checkout bags, doesn't signal a thorough standard of journalism.
Anyhow, I guess the problem is people are disposing of the re-usable bags too quickly? Well look at Austin's legislation: they're missing the nominal mandatory per-bag fee that San Francisco imposed (10 cents). It's not about the money, it's just how people think: if they must pay for something, they assign it higher value, and are less liable to throw it away [0] [1]
The article's journalism is pretty pick-and-choose. For example, the author goes through a list of environmental issues that aren't just weight - biodegradability, animal ingestion, lack of recyclability - but when it comes to comparing canvas bags, suddenly the only thing that matters is carbon emissions.
Similarly, it's written as though the policy was a total failure and should be removed. There's no hint that a modification to the policy could possibly make it work just fine: adding a stronger public education commitment.
Does Austin allow give-aways of re-usable bags? I am not familiar, but I somewhat doubt it. Those bags typically sell for 99c in San Francisco. The 10c charge is for single-use bags (typically a paper sack, but plastic at some establishments).
If they're 99c, I would think that people are thinking of the value just fine. It's just that they're not thinking of using such a bag 130 times, and throw it away after, say, 25 uses.
Actually, Austin has the per-bag fee as well. Source: I'm in Austin. I don't remember if it's $.25 or $.99, but I can honestly say that I tend not to notice it when I forget my bags... adding a few cents to a grocery bill of $30 or more is barely noticeable.
My family uses reusable bags now, and I'm happy for the ban because we probably wouldn't have otherwise, but studies like this one do seem to indicate it wasn't everything it was sold to be.
That said, I rarely ever see a plastic bag stuck in a tree these days, and that's a welcome change.
Klick and Wright have claimed that the San Francisco plastic bag ban leads to an additional 5.5 deaths in the city annually, the mechanism being food-borne diseases growing in unwashed reusable bags [1]. I understand that there have been objections to the research [2], but has it been definitively followed up on?
My family has been using reusable bags whenever possible for several years now, and they do require frequent cleaning.
Bags collect condensation from cold products, which attracts mold. They collect dirt from raw vegetables and from other surfaces they come into contact with. (Imagine how the seat of your pants would smell if you rode a city bus for a week without washing it. American public surfaces are filthy!) Worst of all, some grocers just can't seem to keep the bottom of milk cartons and other dairy products clean. A hint of stale milk + condensation + fabric + time = a perfect recipe for food poisoning.
One problem is that most reusable bags aren't designed for frequent cleaning. Canvas bags get ragged after only a few cycles of typical washing & drying. Some bags are built much stronger and heavier, but they need to be hand washed and thoroughly air dried. I just can't see getting enough uses out of them to offset their carbon footprint.
Also it's not clear to me that the environmental resources required to wash a reusable bag on a household scale (sink, water, soap) is lower than that required to produce a disposable bag on an industrial scale.
So living in austin, I can tell you that the source of these "highly durable reusable bags" is the local supermarket, HEB. They charge you $.25 per bag every time you ask for one. $.25 on a single bag isn't a big deal for most shoppers so, generally, I don't see too many people brining their reusable bags back in. The upside to this is that you actually have more people walking out with their groceries in their hands. But I bet that if you were to tell HEB to start using paper bags like everyone else you would see more paper bags in the recycler than plastic. Because I literally have not been to a single other store that sells plastic bags instead of paper ones.
I remember when the ban first came about, HEB would make you buy the reusable canvas bags instead of having those heavy duty plastic bags. I don't know why they switched. Like you said, every other store in town will give you recyclable paper bags if you forget to bring your own reusables. Unfortunately, since HEB is the only low cost grocery store in town (besides Super Targets and Walmarts), their decision to give out an alternative plastic bag is hurting the effort of the ban.
"...This could explain why well-educated, intelligent people, all across the political spectrum, so often make the unspoken assumption that good intentions and well-crafted words are sufficient for making good public policy"
Boulder stores charge a few cents for bags, but give you the choice to keep or donate an equivalent credit when you bring your own. The system seems effective to me.
Obvious alternative for plastic is Kraft paper, although I'm sure the retailers would be concerned about the "carbon footprint" -- just like when Sam's Club was making a case that polystyrene cups had a lower impact than alternatives due to truck fuel consumption.
The other big costs are damage to wildlife and infrastructure. A family friend is a sewer foreman. He has a crew of 3 guys that roam around our little city clearing drains, sewage pumps and other sewer infrastructure. Anywhere from 40-60% of the clogs are caused by shopping bags. That's a lot of $$, borne by the taxpayer.
Here in Scotland, and also nearby in Ireland, we have a plastic bag charge (around 5p). Immediately after it was introduced, I started taking far less bags. If it was just two small things, I'd carry them by hand. I'd usually bring my backpack and put things in there. Only rarely would I buy a bag (usually when I forgot the backpack).
Net result: I've chucked out far less plastic bags.
A lot of places use similar policies in the US, including Montgomery County, Maryland, which I lived in not too long ago. Rather than a ban, they cost 5-10 cents per bag.
Ireland (ROI) is a bit different as most shops have completely got rid of the thin bags, meaning you have to buy the thicker reusable bags. I was living there just after they introduced the ban and hardly ever rembered to take the reusable bags (I usually got shopping on the way home from work), so had to buy a new one each time. The only thing I used the reusable bags for was storing other reusable bags at home...
I prefer that in the UK you can still get them but you have to pay a small fee. The thinner bags can be reused in rubbish bins etc and easily stored in your coat pocket.
> I prefer that in the UK you can still get them but you have to pay a small fee
Which is a nice earner for some supermarkets.
For example Sainsbury levy a bag fee on orders delivered to your home, even though the groceries come in crates which you hand back to the driver. It's only 40 pence or thereabouts but cumulatively must be considerable.
This annoyed my wife considerably as she always specifies "no bags". When she complained to Sainsbury they said that this was an averaged fee as their system couldn't charge specific customers for the bags they received.
So she switched to their rivals Tesco who only charge a fee if you request bags.
They recently implemented a similar ban in Chicago. Now stores just give out thick "reusable" plastic bags. The whole thing has been an all around failure: it's strictly worse for the environment and consumers indirectly pay for more expensive bags
I go to a thai place in SF that skirts the ban by using the heavy "reusable" bags as disposable ones. There's no difference between these and actual disposable bags other than that they are thicker. They're still small and worthless to reuse. And there's no chance to ask not to get one.
The problem in my eyes isn't how people use them, it's that the businesses hand them out in place of disposable bags as if they were substitutes. If we can't ban them from doing that, then can't we let the plastic bag surcharge be for the smaller less impactful ones and have the bag fee pay off carbon credits or something.
Oh, they're different. They cost more, take five or ten times as much plastic to make, take more fuel to transport, and take up more space in landfills.
Think about just how little material the thin bags use, and think about how many of them you'd have to stack to equal the thickness of the thick bag.
> I go to a thai place in SF that skirts the ban by using the heavy "reusable" bags as disposable ones. There's no difference between these and actual disposable bags other than that they are thicker. They're still small and worthless to reuse. And there's no chance to ask not to get one.
If there is no chance to ask not to get one, they aren't, as I understand it, "skirting" the ban, they are straight-up violating it just as much as if they were using the regular disposable bags in the same role rather than the heavier, notionally reusable ones (presuming, of course, they are covered by the ban at all; I think there are scale rules on who is covered, so they may be a non-covered entity that just has been less able to source the old bags because of the ban.)
They just recently banned the bags here in Chicago. I was disappointed that when I went to the store today they gave me a thicker plastic bag with "re-usable" printed on it.
It seems like an idiotic misinterpretation of the entire point of banning bags. What kind of BS political spin-job have we gotten ourselves into?
I guess it means that the particular bag can be used more than once, a handful of times perhaps, before being thrown out. Not all reusable bags mean perpetual reuse, some just mean more than once.
And plastic bags fit that category easily. e.g., I've been using the same run-of-the-mill-grocery-plastic-bag to bring my lunch to work for the last several months. We otherwise store all our grocery bags in a tiny cabinet for reuse whenever convenient.
I don't think there is any bag which will offer perpetual use. Everything wears and degrades over time, be they plastic, canvass, burlap, nylon, etc.
What matters is cost (environmental as well as production) and incidentals like whether they can suffocate children or sicken people by providing pathogen habitat, or even aesthetics (disposed on highways).
The currently-delayed-for-referendum (which will be part of the November 2016 general election ballot) statewide rule in California has specific durability requirements, including both objective measures of thickness, etc., and that reusable bags be designed for at least 125 uses for trips of a specified distance carrying a specified weight.
I think that rules like this are fairly common in rules providing for reusable bags and banning single-use ones.
I definitely understand that this bag can be reused. I thought the point of banning bags was so people would bring their own bag, perhaps have to pay a bag tax or whatever.
I don't see how these bags made it better at all - in fact it's much worse. The bags will be used (or discarded) exactly the same as the cheaper ones - it's just wasting 3x the amount of plastic.
It just seems like a policy designed to reduce trash was twisted in it's interpretation and will actually generate way more trash. It's absurd!
Can any one comment if paper bags (with handles) are batter, worse, or about the same, for the environment?
Also, single use bags do not have to be single use. I collect them and use them to collect my trash, pick up after my dog, and cover up food in the fridge. Do people really just come home and toss those plastic bags away? Just curious.
I'm not an expert, but they are obviously better. Paper decomposes fairly quickly (in comparison to plastic), and most paper products are made from paper tree farms, not hardwood forests. In addition, some of the paper used to make the brown paper grocery bags usually comes from recycled paper, not wood. Tree farms plant fast-growing trees, and then replant continuously, so the net effect on the environment of using paper is actually very low. Ultimately, the net impact of paper bags is the extra CO2 involved in transporting the bags around during shipment from manufacturing, recycling, and to their destinations, at grocery chains. This seems low compared to the footprint of plastic, which is made from oil products.
So, the cities that ban one time use bags, why not just legislate the use of paper bags. I mean, it's a win win, for the consumer and the environment. I know that reusing bags will always be preferable, but if it's not working because people keep buying the reusable bags and not reusing them, wouldn't it be easier to just use paper bags.
> So, the cities that ban one time use bags, why not just legislate the use of paper bags.
The economics and science of materials changes much faster than legislation. When it does, you're stuck with some old mandate to use this bad type of bag for many years.
> So, the cities that ban one time use bags, why not just legislate the use of paper bags.
At least the California ban that the plastic bag industry delayed for a referendum kinda-sorta did this (as to many of the local bans in California).
They ban single-use, no-fee bags.
They ban single-use, plastic bags, regardless of fee, for certain uses by certain retailers.
They permit single-use, paper bags with a minimum fee, for similar certain uses by the same certain retailers.
They permit reusable plastic, canvas, or other bags, with specified durability requirements, with a minimum fee when sold by the entities covered by the ban on single-use plastic and/or no-fee bags.
I don't have strong feelings about a plastic bag ban, but the one thing that sort of surprised me after living in San Francisco the last few years is that I take far fewer plastic bags when I have a small number of items. I'll just opt to carry the few items in my hands instead. It's gotten to the point where every time I travel somewhere without a bag ban it just feels weird to get them for free.
Like I said, not something I have strong feelings about either way, but thought it was interesting that it did change my usage habits.
Well, you don't (hopefully) need a shopping-bag size plastic bag for dog poop.
For dog poo, I buy dedicated poo bags which cost a few cents each and are biodegradable (and blackened, so you don't need to admire the content as with clear bags).
Over here (Finland), the shopping bags we use cost 20 cents each. That is not a tax, but money that the shops collect to their pockets and have thus conveniently avoided any specific plastic bag tax.
The grocery shopping plastic bags are typically something like 15-20 litres in volume and can carry perhaps 10 kg of groceries if you're careful. After carrying home, people often use them for household waste, and then they go with the contained waste to landfill or nowadays incineration.
Small, thin bags are free (for instance for packing vegetables) but they are useless for carrying anything in the sense of a shopping bag; they're just there for cleanly keeping different items apart within a shopping bag.
Myself, I often use a small blue IKEA bag for groceries (when kids were teenagers, we bought so much stuff that we actually used a large IKEA bag which might weigh perhaps 30 kg for a week's main shopping round...).
Or a rucksack or a bike bag if I go to shop on the bike. However, if I don't have one with me, I'm quite happy to get a thinner single-use bag instead of having to buy yet another more robust bag (of which we have many).
Plastic bags are around 0,2 % of household waste; not very much, but I prefer to avoid even that if possible.
Fortunately our local Greens finally suffered a complete defeat and we now have a waste incineration system instead of an ideological system of much talk about recycling and a landfill (even if the amount of waste we produce is generally lower than in the US; in most of Europe the figure is somewhere around 1 kg per person per day; in California it is 2 kg per person per day).
Making a plastic bag takes about 40 % less energy than making a paper bag, BTW.
Mumbai banned plastic bags and ruled that shops levy a 3 rupee surcharge if you wanted a plastic bag. For comparison a cup of tea on the street is 7 rupees. Mumbai during the monsoon season faces 3 months of torrential downpour, and the plastic bags would clog up public drainage systems and was one of the main causes of small scale urban flooding. Post-banning the plastic bags, things have changed for the better - significantly so.
Were plastic bags really the problem in Mumbai? To me, issues like clogging the drainage system felt like the obvious consequence from so many people throwing their garbage out into the street.
Last para is sweet -- "Austin deserves to be commended for its candid assessment of what its plastic bag ban has actually accomplished ... it should encourage a more thorough and realistic assessment of what such a ban can actually accomplish"
Just as every other task, as long as the administrators are ready to monitor and calibrate their approach to environmental policies, good intentions matters!
We used to reuse our plastic bags for dog poop bags, for packing lunches, etc. Now we just have to buy plastic dog bags, etc. And then there's the annoying thing when I go to buy something small at the store and they have to put it in a large paper bag.
Also, our reusable bags, especially the ones for lunch get really gross, really easy. And there's no way I'm getting 130 uses out of it (see article link)
Eventually the paper bag makers will catch up and you'll see all the bag sizes I grew up with. There were large bag ("garbage bag" size), and a smaller version of that, a shorter version of that smaller version, a lunch bag size, and a penny candy bag (about a cup and half in volume).
I reuse all the plastic bags I get from the market until their shreds. There's a woodturner who lives on my street that recycles his plastic bags and the bottle caps from pop bottles into chisel mallets and pen turning blanks.
Paper is a step back, IMHO, but the plastic bags have to go. Too many people today litter and the things are blowing all over the place.
I live in a place that will never ban plastic bags and residents often fly giant flags from posts on their pickup trucks further reducing their fuel efficiency.
But it seems this is a sort of social game designed to trick people into doing the "right thing". Would it not be a better solution to mandate use of plant-based biodegradable bags or just regular old paper bags like in the good old days?
.JPG){kind=link}
Actually that's exactly what it should do. Austin should also repeal its own ban, at least, in light of the evidence showing that it's ineffective.
reply