The Seattle Times reported this week that the American Chemistry Council has spent a half million dollars on a PR campaign against a Seattle referendum that would charge a 20 cent fee on disposable shopping bags. The ACC’s contribution is the single largest to a local ballot-measure in recent Seattle history.
The Seattle ordinance is intended to provide an incentive for consumers to buy reusable bags instead of disposable plastic and paper. Most disposable bags are not recycled. Many wind up in landfills, and an enormous amount of plastic garbage has been dumped into the ocean. Accordng to the Green Bag Campaign, an organization supporting the referendum, the cost of recycling bags exceeds the cost of making them in the first place. Moreover, plastics and paper are "down-cycled," losing quality when recycled. Eventually the material used to make them must be disposed.
The "Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax" is being funded by Progressive Bag Affiliates of the American Chemistry Council, a Virginia-based group of companies that profit from the manufacture of disposable bags. Their members include Advance Polybag, Inc., The Dow Chemical Company, ExxonMobil Corporation, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, NOVA Chemicals, Inc., Superbag Corporation, Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc., and Unistar Plastics, LLC.
One of the arguments this group is making is that alternatives to disposable plastic bags are, in fact, worse for the environment. The ACC hired Boustead Consulting & Associates Ltd. to conduct a life-cycle assessment comparing the environmental impact of plastic disposable bags to biodegradable plastic and recycled paper bags. Life-cycle assessments evaluate the environmental impact of products at several stages. Energy and waste are created when raw materials to make the product are extracted and transported and when these materials are changed to create manufacturing materials. Distribution of the product, the way it is used by the consumer and disposal of the product are all considered in life-cycle assessments of environmental impact. In the study conducted by Boustead Consulting & Associates, energy use, raw material use, water use, air emissions, water effluents, and solid wastes were evaluated.
The Boustead study, explicitly conducted to address government ordinances affecting the plastic bag industry, states,
"In the national effort to go green, several states, counties, and cities are turning their attention to plastic grocery bags made from polyethylene because of the perception that plastic bags contribute to local and global litter problems that affect marine life, occupy the much needed landfill space with solid waste, and increase U.S. dependence on oil. . . .
To help inform the debate on the environmental impacts of grocery bags, and identify the types and magnitudes of environmental impacts associated with each type of bag, the Progressive Bag Alliance contracted Boustead Consulting & Associates (BCAL) to conduct a life cycle assessment (LCA) on single use plastic bags as well as the two most commonly proposed alternatives: the recyclable paper bag made in part from recycled fiber and the compostable plastic bag." (5)
The study concludes that single use plastic bags are better for the environment:
"These study results confirm that the standard polyethylene grocery bag has significantly lower environmental impacts than a 30% recycled content paper bag. . . . In addition, this report also shows that the typical polyethylene grocery bag has fewer environmental impacts than a compostable plastic grocery bag made from a blend of EcoFlex (BASF), polylactic acid, and calcium carbonate . . ." (55)
So the disposable plastic bag wins, right? However, a fascinating tidbit is tucked away on page 55 of the study’s conclusions:
"This study did not examine the impacts associated with reusable cloth bags, so no comparison was made between the cloth bags and single-use polyethylene plastic bags. In other studies, however, cloth bags were shown to reduce environmental impacts if consumers can be convinced to switch."
In other words, the firm was asked to compare the environmental impact of disposable bags to a biodegradable plastic alternative and a 30% recycled paper alternative. It was not asked to compare the environmental life-cycle impact of disposable and non-disposable cloth bags. Nevertheless, the firm does tell us that according to other studies, reusable cloth bags are better for the environment.
So why weren’t reusable cloth bags included in this study? According to Boustead Consulting & Associates,
"Reusable cloth bags may be the preferred alternative, but in reality, there is no evidence that most, or even a majority of, customers will reliably bring reusable bags each time they go shopping." (5) . . . "The problem is that there are few examples where entire cities, counties, or countries have been successful in changing consumer behavior from the convenience of using bags provided by retail establishments to bringing their own bags to the store each time they shop. There is no question that a percentage of consumers do, and will use reusable cloth grocery bags, but the vast majority of consumers still appear to use the freely available bags provided by retail establishments." (55)
So according to this ACC-funded study, we need not compare the environmental impact of disposable versus non-disposable bags because cities have not been successful in getting consumers to choose non-disposables over more convenient disposable plastic. Were governments successful in convincing people to use non-disposables, they would be the preferred environmental alternative.
This is precisely what the 20 cent Seattle fee is intended to do – provide the incentive for consumers to choose non-disposable cloth over disposable plastic by having them pay previously hidden costs, including the cost incurred by stores distributing "free" bags (a cost that is passed on to the consumer in product prices) as well as the environmental "external cost," which we all pay.