ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Plastic Bags: More Cities Get on the Banned-Wagon

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Let’s face it: plastic bags are really handy. But as we know, they’re also terrible for the environment and for wildlife. They jam landfills, where they will not decompose for centuries, and they float across wide swaths of the seas. More than 90 percent of all birds recently examined in the North Sea had plastics in their stomachs, according to the European Commission.

Environmentalists tried for years to get municipalities or retailers to ban the bags or at least charge consumers for each bag handed out at the cash register, with little success. But the tide seems to be turning. Today 133 American cities or counties have imposed controls, according to a recent update from the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. A database of the regulations can be downloaded here (Excel file).

The measures range from charges of 5 to 20 cents for every bag that is handed out by cashiers, to full bans—usually on so-called thin plastic bags, which are only intended for one-time use. Bans now cover one-third of the residents in California, the institute says. For example, San Francisco now bans bags from large supermarkets, chain pharmacies and restaurants. Plastic bag purchases by retailers in the state have fallen from 107 million pounds in 2008 to 62 million pounds in 2012, according to the institute. Plastics industry groups have raised lawsuits against various regulations but courts have not found in their favor in most cases.

Rules are on the rise in Texas, too. Austin has banned the thin bags, and Dallas has imposed a 5-cent fee that will go into effect in 2015. Seattle banned the bags in 2012 and instituted a 5-cent fee for paper bags, which are often handed out to shoppers who don’t have their own reusable cloth bags. Still, no U.S. state has managed to pass a statewide ban.

The progress is being welcomed by other countries such as Denmark and Ireland, which have led the movement. Members of the European Union have agreed to reduce plastic-bag use by 80 percent by 2019. However, restrictions in other parts of the world have been less successful. China passed a ban on extra-thin plastic bags before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, but Scientific American’s own editor, David Biello, who was in China that year, was told that enforcement was often lax and fines were often not levied. Several large cities in South America have proposed bans that were defeated by industry or passed laws that were later overturned by courts.

The Earth Policy Institute, in another briefing, points out that recycling of plastic bags—often touted by industry as an alternative to fees or bans—often doesn’t work. The vast majority of bags in communities that have recycling still end up in the trash, the institute says. And recycling companies seems to run into problems with the bags that do come back; when mixed with the rest of the plastics waste stream, the bags tend to jam or damage sorting machines.

The other solution—biodegradable plastic bags—have had mixed success. The bags typically cost more, so consumers don’t buy them, and tests have shown that some of them don’t break down completely or quickly.

Scientists are finding new formulations that may perform better. Last week, for example, researcher at Virginia Tech unveiled thin, biodegradable plastic bags made in part from lignin, a compound in the cell walls of plants. Mills that make paper generate a lot of waste lignin that is usually discarded.

Various companies have tried to turn that waste into a resource, and Virginia Tech has hit upon a new approach, working with Domtar Corporation, a large pulp and paper company. In the new scheme, machines remove lignin during the pulping step, then refine it so it can be used in chemical processes. A spinoff company started by the Virginia Tech researchers, CycleWood Solutions, has filed patents for modifying that lignin and mixing it with other polymers to make biodegradable products. So far, a pilot plant has cranked out thin, single-use plastic bags, trash-can liners and meat bags. The company is now doing experimental runs for cups and plates. Tests by an independent lab in Belgium show the bags will disintegrate into humus particles that are less than 2 millimeters in size, within six months.

Photo courtesy of Cjp24 on WikimediaCommons

Mark Fischetti About the Author: Mark Fischetti is a senior editor at Scientific American who covers energy, environment and sustainability issues. Follow on Twitter @markfischetti.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 10 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. JoshuaNaterman 10:58 am 05/19/2014

    What are the other polymers? It’s kind of important to know whether this would be a truly eco-friendly product or a rapid-release delivery system that dumps endocrine- and immune-disrupting chemicals into the soil and groundwater at a vastly increased rate compared to traditional plastic.

    Link to this
  2. 2. billbedford 11:07 am 05/19/2014

    Surely landfill is the best place for redundant plastics? After all they have a mineral origin and are more or less inert, much as quarts or feldspar is.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Soccerdad 1:36 pm 05/19/2014

    The article begins with quite a litany of sins for plastic bags:
    – “terrible for the environment”
    – “they jam landfills
    – “more than 90 percent of all birds recently examined in the North Sea had plastics in their stomachs”

    Terrible for the environment how exactly? Surely they consume less energy and generate less solid waste than paper bags. What’s the problem with these bags in landfills. First, there’s not much volume there, so they aren’t really “jamming” landfills. Also, they are made from inert non toxic materials. In other words, the perfect material to be placed in a landfill. Ok, so most seabirds have plastic in their stomach. There’s no indication it is from these bags.
    Personally I don’t like these bags from a useability standpoint. But, the list of offenses proffered is certainly not sufficient to justify a ban.

    Link to this
  4. 4. atomheart 3:01 pm 05/19/2014

    I also don’t know what the big deal against these very reusable bags is. Most plastics these days carry that little triangle stamped on them with a number from 1-7 indicating what type of plastic they are made from. Local recycling regimes then stipulate which numbers are useable in their process, allowing them to be put in the blue bins. Initially when plastic recycling started in my state of CT, only #1 and #2 plastics were allowed, which I believe are the clear water bottles and such. This indicated that these water bottles were the simplest and easiest to recycle. Over time they added other numbers including plastics bags (which I believe is a #4). Most plastics now are accepted except styrofoam (#6?) and containers that have had chemicals or fertilizers in them. This tells me that plastic bags are indeed recyclable. And, they make them purposefully thin these days so they break down faster. Ever see one that’s been outside for 6 months or so? It’s a ragged, gossamer shadow of itself seemingly disintegrating right in fron of your eyes.

    Anyways, couldn’t a huge burial site of non-distintegrating plastic be considered a “carbon sink”?

    Link to this
  5. 5. SJCrum 6:36 pm 05/19/2014

    Concerning the situation of plastic bags, a total WIN/WIN solution is to simply change the plastic bags, and all garbage, from the stored energy type of atom structure back into the totally free energy that was used in the beginning to make the atoms.
    All that is needed is a disposal plant that has the totally-doable science to change all atoms back into the original energy.
    In the end, the plastic bag situation can continue in the same way of being extremely handy, and in the end, the bags are completely gone, and all of the enormous energy in the atoms is also available for total use. It’s as simple as that.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Jerzy v. 3.0. 5:25 am 05/22/2014

    I have a mixed feeling, because concentrating on making plastic bags expensive is an easy way to divert attention from other pollution and to push environmental cost on people.

    Link to this
  7. 7. Wayne Williamson 6:07 pm 05/22/2014

    I love these free throw away bags. I walk my dog at least once a day and use one to two of these a day to “pick up” after her. For me, all they are doing is shifting the cost from free, to having to pay for them.

    Maybe what they should have tried is to develop a plastic that degrades in 1 or 2 months after being in contact with water.

    Link to this
  8. 8. disdaniel 9:02 pm 05/22/2014

    Our city just banned the disposable bags. Good riddance to those damn plastic bags.

    I hate them, but I generally forget to bring my own bags with. With this ban, I’ll simply have to keep my own bags in the car where I can’t forget them.

    Link to this
  9. 9. johnog 12:32 am 05/24/2014

    @soccerdad Paper bags can be recycled easily, especially if one uses them to collect one’s recyclable paper.

    Link to this
  10. 10. ahmed123 5:25 am 05/27/2014

    znxtkzryk

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article



This function is currently unavailable

X