Washington state’s ban on thin plastic grocery bags is increasing the amount of plastic used by shoppers and overall environmental harm, contrary to the intent of the law.
That is the conclusion of a report from Washington State University researchers prepared for the state departments of Commerce and Ecology. The report notes the law “may not be effective at reducing environmental impacts, as the bags are often not reused, and certainly not reused enough to offset their higher contribution to plastic waste and litter and increased lifecycle costs.”
The report found that although shoppers are using about half the number of bags they did previously, the increased thickness of the bags offsets the reduction in use. That echoes the argument we have been making for many years that bans increase environmental damage.
Studies have routinely found plastic bag bans end up doing more harm than good because shoppers switch to bags that use more energy, water and resources to produce.
Despite the science and data repeatedly demonstrating that the bag ban is harmful, employees at the state Departments of Commerce and Ecology are not happy. They favor the ban and have gone to great lengths to undermine the Washington State University report, adding a lengthy rebuttal to the front of the study explaining all the study’s shortcomings and arguing against its recommendations.
The excuses provided by Commerce and Ecology employees are wonderfully reminiscent of those offered by Sir Humphrey Appleby from the 1980s British TV satire, “Yes Minister.” Sir Humphrey is a bureaucrat in the British government and in an episode that aired in 1981, explains all the ways government agencies can discredit a report they don’t like.
For example, Sir Humphrey explains that an agency can claim a report does not provide “sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment.” Fittingly, the writers of the preamble written by Commerce and Ecology claim the Washington State University study’s conclusions are “based upon insufficient data from within Washington State.”
Sir Humphrey also explains that bureaucrats can claim that “much of the evidence is inconclusive.” Obligingly, Commerce and Ecology employees write, “the lack of robust available data limits the report’s ability to present a comprehensive view” on how the ban is working.
Additionally, a report can fail, explains Sir Humphrey, because “it leaves important questions unanswered.”
What kind of questions? Commerce and Ecology employees note the university study fails “to consider larger social, economic and environmental implications.” What are those implications?
The agencies’ employees don’t explain how they would be balanced against the conclusions in the report.
The fact that Washington State University researchers were not asked to examine those considerations is immaterial. Those questions remain unanswered, undermining the utility of the study as a basis for decision-making.
The state’s preamble acknowledges that “Without sufficient reuse, reusable carryout bags made of paper, plastic, or fabric have higher environmental lifecycle costs than their single-use counterparts.”
This admission directly contradicts one of the claims made in the intent section of the law that claims, “Alternatives to single-use plastic carryout bags are convenient, functional, widely available and measure as superior across most environmental performance metrics.
Alternatives to single-use plastic carryout bags feature especially superior environmental performance with respect to litter and marine debris, since plastic bags do not biodegrade.” This study — among others — demonstrates this is not accurate and Commerce and Ecology staff seem to agree.
Left with a study showing the current policy increases environmental damage, what do agency employees recommend changing? They support keeping the bags at the current thickness.
Meanwhile, researchers suggest eliminating the thickness requirement.
Agency bureaucrats claim changes in the law should focus on “equity impacts rather than considering only environmental costs.” How will they measure equity and environmental justice impacts against the data showing environmental harm? They can’t. They are just vague slogans that can be used to come to any conclusion agency staff prefer.
The agencies’ preamble is a perfect example of how government bureaucrats undermine studies they don’t like.
In the meantime, however, Washington’s law on plastic grocery bags will continue to increase environmental damage – the very opposite of what was claimed when the law was adopted.
— Todd Myers is the Washington Policy Center’s vice president for research. Email him at tmyers@washingtonpolicy.org
Read full article on Franklin Connection >>
The Franklin Connection is an online news and sports site dedicated to Franklin County, Washington, and the surrounding communities. The publication offers news, marketing, advertising and online services to the residents of Pasco, Basin City, Mesa, Eltopia, Connell, Kahlotus and Burbank.
