Ten years after California passed landmark legislation to reduce plastic bag use, the tonnage of discarded bags has skyrocketed. What happened?

It was a decade ago when California became the first state in the nation to ban single-use plastic bags, ushering in a wave of anti-plastic legislation from coast to coast.

But in the years after California seemingly kicked its plastic grocery sack habit, material recovery facilities and environmental activists noticed a peculiar trend: Plastic bag waste by weight was increasing to unprecedented levels.

According to a report by the consumer advocacy group CALPIRG, 157,385 tons of plastic bag waste was discarded in California the year the law was passed. By 2022, however, the tonnage of discarded plastic bags had skyrocketed to 231,072 — a 47% jump. Even accounting for an increase in population, the number rose from 4.08 tons per 1,000 people in 2014 to 5.89 tons per 1,000 people in 2022.

The problem, it turns out, was a section of the law that allowed grocery stores and large retailers to provide thicker, heavier-weight plastic bags to customers for the price of a dime.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    221·
    9 months ago

    That’s cause we didn’t actually ban them. Neo Liberals thought people would stop using them if they had to pay 10 cents.

    Turns out, nobody cared. We need an actual ban.

    • jpeps@lemmy.world
      7·
      9 months ago

      Not OP, but that’s what we did in the UK too… I’m honestly confused reading the post and the comments calling California out on this. I must be misunderstanding something because we did the same thing and it really, really worked. The UK led the charge on the concept of ‘nudges’ like this and it’s been successful and widely praised. We still have thick plastic bags that you buy for 10p, but most people really do keep some on hand for most situations so plastic dumping has been significantly reduced.

      • turmacar@lemmy.world
        3·
        9 months ago

        The ‘nudges’ thing is contested. It’s basically from one book and the studies that used it mostly showed temporary single digit differences. Then there’s a lot of celebration that “the rate of change is picking up!” before long term effects fail to emerge. It falls smack dab in the center of the replication crisis.

        A lot more direct action is required to make sizeable changes, like outreach campaigns and actually trying to change people’s minds/behavior.

        • jpeps@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          Fair enough, thank you for clarifying! ‘replication crisis’ were the first words in my head as soon as I saw the top line of your comment haha.

    • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
      71·
      9 months ago

      Or one just buys them in bulk and brings their own plastic bags to the store. Cheaper than $.10, still legal.

      Plastic grocery bags take up so little space and are so versatile for so many things that would otherwise take thicker more expensive trashbag-like material, or paper or cloth that can’t handle wet.

      Replacing them at the store didn’t replace them at the litterbox, at the quick trip to the friend’s house to bring some snacks, at the carpet stain cleanup, at the garage project cleanup, at side of the road car repair, for emergency gloves in a pinch, at stopping liquid leaks in your car’s trunk because some container broke, at the small bathroom trash can at home, and so many other places where those bags can and do get reused a bunch of times. Paper and cloth bags both leak. Cloth bags waste drinking water to clean. Regular trash bags not only cost more, but like this article mentions, are also thicker plastic resulting in more plastic ending up in a landfill.

      Not trying to sound pro-plastic grocery bag, just pointing out that they are infinitely useful for so many small tasks, and the replacements can’t hold up to the task, or are worse in several ways. It’s difficult to remove something from peoples’ processes when there aren’t any reasonable substitutes.

      Paper probably has the best bet of going back to prevalence since it can be a carbon sink cycle, but it will take time.