Plastic Bag Bans are Anti-Science

From 1 July the government has banned retailers from supplying single use plastic bags. The ban was beaten to the punch by several major retailers who had already committed to eliminating the use of this environmental menace.

The problem? The ban on bags is anti-science. The science, for those prepared to examine the issues objectively, is clear: not only is the problem of plastic bags (and the next target, straws) not as big stated, it doesn’t deal with the real issues and the alternatives are worse than the original problem.

It all began with a laudable goal: to reduce the volume of plastic ending up in the oceans. Plastic bags we were told were ending up in the sea in vast quantities and killing all manner of marine wildlife.

Let’s start with the science on the problem. It’s incontrovertible that too much plastic ends up in the oceans. However, the vast majority of this plastic has nothing to do with bags (or straws). Instead approximately three quarters comes from the fishing industry, with almost half (46%) coming from nets and buoys, tackle and lines making up another 30%. However, outside some fringe environmental groups no one is (yet) talking seriously about banning fishing. Less than 0.8% of all plastic going in the oceans is derived from plastic bags (note that an even smaller amount comes from straws).

Then there’s the inconvenient fact that less than 5% of land-based plastic waste comes from OECD countries. The other 95% comes from the developing world. Over 50% comes from just four countries: China, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam. The reason is that these countries have effectively non-existent waste collection and recycling infrastructures. A 2015 study estimated that 88% of waste generated in Vietnam is either directly littered or tossed into uncontained rubbish dumps. In China the rate is 77%. By comparison the rate in the USA is 2%. If you really want to solve the problem of plastic in oceans you tackle it by building recycling infrastructure in the developing world – unfortunately that doesn’t win any votes or allow you to proclaim your green credentials.

Back in the West, having successfully banned single use bags the problem of how to carry your groceries home hasn’t gone away. Enter cotton totes, paper bags and multi-use plastic bags. Unfortunately, a Danish Ministry for the Environment study found you needed to reuse a cotton bag 20,000 times before it creates less environmental damage than a plastic one (that’s 191 years assuming you use it twice a week). Paper bags need to be reused 43 times (good luck with that) and multi-use plastic bags a minimum of 37 times depending on the construction, as they contain between four and ten times more plastic than conventional single use bags. Then there’s the fact consumers frequently neglect to bring their multi-use bags back to the store. Surveys suggest that the average consumer forgets their bags roughly half the time – cue buying more multi-use bags, containing substantially more plastic.

Let’s also not forget that “single use” plastic bags are frequently multi-use. Data suggests that at least 40% of them are re-used in their life span. Based on offshore experience, many consumers, unable to access to single use bags, simply switch to buying plastic bags to line rubbish bins. Ironically when California banned single use bags consumption of plastic bags increased by 120%. The net effect: more plastic consumption not less and retailers charging consumers more. Let’s also just ignore the fact that away from the checkout the rest of the supermarket aisles are awash in plastic.

In short, the crusade against plastic bags will cause more environmental harm than good, fails to deal with the real problem (inadequate waste management offshore) and forces consumers to swap a superior product for an inferior one that costs more. The only real winners are hypocritical retailers intent on green washing their reputations (and charging us more) and environmentally naïve (or disingenuous) politicians proclaiming their commitment to environmental causes that look good but have no impact. Saving the planet, it turns out, is much harder and more complex than we were told.

If as consumers we want to make a real difference we are better supporting efforts to improve waste processing in the developing world. Not as environmentally sexy but a lot more effective.

If you enjoyed this article please follow me at:

Twitter @emperorsrobes

Alex Davis is a business executive and director of several companies in New Zealand and overseas.