The plastic tiger

Grocery shopping just got a lot harder

By Aditya Kashyap
From the May 2007 Print Edition

            Paper or plastic? The age-old question that has challenged human thought for what seems an eternity has now been answered. Apparently, the city of San Francisco has the answer, banning the ordinary plastic bag — and the city seems to think it knows better than the rest of the nation.

            While biodegradable plastic bags are better the environment, they also currently cost more to produce. This may be a viable option, as the extra cost should decrease over time. In the meantime, let’s concede for a minute that it is true that regular plastic bags are worse for the environment than paper bags, an issue that to this day is still widely debated throughout the nation. Even if this is true, the studies, like the one conducted by UC Berkeley, that purport such a notion only concern themselves with the production of these bags. So yes, while in terms of production cost a plastic bag may produce more pollution than the paper bag, it is also much more durable. While paper bags are usually disposed of after one use, plastic bags can be found in every American household. They are used as trash bags, for various school arts and crafts, and simply as bags for storage. According to Wayne’s Book of Oddities 2006, the average plastic grocery bag has a life of 30 uses when carrying 10 pounds. When taking into account the turnover cost of paper bags, not to mention the logging required to produce them, they actually are much more harmful to the environment than plastic bags.

            The argument that plastic bags are more harmful to the environment than paper bags may or may not be true, depending on which studies one consults. The decision of whether to ban one type of bag completely, however, should not rest solely on this. Life is about opportunity costs; if plastic bags produce a larger externality on the environment, and subsequently society, then the cost should be borne by the plastic plants that produce these bags. Subsequently, that cost will be passed onto the grocery stores, who will then pass it on to the consumers. If the stores do not factor the cost into the prices of other goods, customers who choose plastic over paper can simply pay a small fee (a few cents per bag) for the convenience of using a material that is more durable and convenient to handle than paper.

            Originally, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors proposed such a tax, administered by the government. However, California passed legislation to the effect that a city government cannot impose such taxes — which is correct. The solution is to have business regulate the tax in the sense that each element of production can decide whether or not to pass the cost of the bags on to the next level, beginning with the companies that produce the bags. The federal government would simply decide, relative to paper bags, how much extra pollution is attributed to plastic bags, and then tax the production plants accordingly.

            Now, the government is proposing that we ban regular plastic bags altogether and only allow the use of biodegradable plastic bags, which cost more. It is not the place of the government to decide which type of bags people use, and artificially impose a tax on all shoppers without giving them a choice. If consumers wish to use the biodegradable plastic bags, they can do so. However, what incentive would the consumer have to choose a more expensive bag that provides no immediate benefits? The government could possibly subsidize the biodegradable plastic bags from the money attained from taxing the plants producing regular plastic bags until the eventual shift to only biodegradable bags. By that time, the technology to produce them, along with increasing production capacity, will drive down their price.

            Plastic bags offer a convenience to the consumer: They can be reused, and it is easier to carry goods in them. Just as there is a cost for luxury elsewhere, one can be implemented here otherwise. However, it is not correct to simply deny this option all together. If it was up to the city of San Francisco, using this logic, all mid-to-large-size vehicles would be banned. The clothing industry would be next; the fancy suits Gavin Newsom sports on his daily rounds contain dyes that are harmful to the environment. The only logical step, according to the Board of Supervisors, would have to be a mandate demanding citizens don only biodegradable outerwear produced from wild grasses and hemp, as Willie Nelson, environmentalist extraordinaire, is currently advocating.

            Greenpeace-type environmentalists have no idea what they are rallying behind; the only consistency in their actions is that they view corporations and consumers as evil and the environment as the defenseless victim. Take for instance the global-warming debate, which has recently become heated with Al Gore’s Senate testimonials (no pun intended). Gore was advocating that the restoration of tropical forests in Brazil as well as those in the tundra regions of the Northern hemisphere would help. Now, the same scientists he cited are saying that new evidence shows that the fir forests in Siberia could actually be trapping in sunlight and thus raising the temperature of the Earth. Yet Gore is not calling for us to cut down these trees.

Environmental science is not an exact science … the studies that the Board of Supervisors is citing as justification for the plastic-bag ban were only a few months in the making. More research needs to be done.

            It should not be up to local authorities to regulate commerce. It is a job that should be left to the federal government. Even then, trade should be regulated to a minimum. If the citizens of San Francisco are truly concerned about the environment, then they will choose biodegradable bags themselves or bring their own reusable bags. The attitude that a few groups of people know what is best for an entire municipality is not only condescending but also dangerous. Just look at what happened to the USSR.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot