Hacker News Reader

Comment by PrimalDual | Hacker News Reader

I find there is a worrying lack of thorough quantitative analysis with these types of bans and attempts to internalize externalities. This law is a statement by lawmakers predicated on the cost of single use plastic bags and even paper bags to be greater than the efficiencies they introduce to society at large. It seems to me that such a statement is extremely hard to quantify. Furthermore this may also be a regressive tax where poor people disproportionately benefit from the benefits provided by single use plastic bags and the rich pay more of the consequences. This is without even taking into account the unintended consequences of such laws. Another poster even mentioned the health hazards that could be introduced.

View on HN

The “efficiency” cost is being absorbed by other communities: https://www.riverkeeper.org/blogs/docket/plastic-pollution-d...

Many European cities have done fine without single-use plastic bags for years. The cost of a reusable bag is still negligible and should have no impact on purchasing power.

Finally, there is a ton of data on the impact of plastic pollution in local rivers, sea life and other ecosystems. What other data are you looking for?

How do plastic bags end up in the river? Do people just throw these things on the ground or into the river?

I wish anti-littering laws could effectively be enforced, but I realize it's tough to do.

Who cares how those bags end up there?

To figure it out and then properly enforce you'd need spend resources that could be better used elsewhere.

Are you serious? You don’t even care if the bags are actually coming from the the locations where the bags are being banned?

To play devil's advocate a bit: If most of the plastic bags in NYC were coming from New Jersey, that wouldn't be a reason to allow them in New York. It would just emphasize that they should be restricted in as many jurisdictions as possible.

I don't think that particular reasoning works - perhaps New Yorkers (hypothetically) behave very nicely and properly dispose of plastic bags, so there is no need for ban.

If we know how they end up there it will help understand how well solutions will work obviously. Are people flushing them down the toilet? Does the wind catch the bag before anyone can react? Do people throw them on the ground because their pockets are full and there is no trash bin for miles?

Hint: they don't disappear after use.

The sarcasm doesn't explain how they end up in the environment instead of being buried in the landfill or burned at the garbage-burning facility.

The minutiae doesn't matter. Every bag that doesn't end up in a landfill or incinerated, will end up causing trouble in the environment. You know the disposal rate won't be 100%. Why worry about the specifics?

Because every environmental policy should be based on cost-benefit analysis. Otherwise we could just ban all plastic, all fossil fuels and much more.

It seems to me that you, in this case, intuitively think that cost-benefit analysis sways entirely one way even though you don't know the specifics. But the bar for banning stuff should be higher than that.

It's not just about this particular policy. Every time a restrictive policy is introduced by hand-wavy feel-good arguments (even with best of intentions) it becomes more acceptable to introduce other future policies in a similar way. And if it doesn't actually produce results it's actively harmful - we feel like we're doing something but we're not. Maybe we should just forget about plastic bags and invest in putting more garbage cans around the city or ramp-up inspections on landfill management (thus potentially solving the problem with plastic bags, straws, bottles, utensils etc. with one stroke). How could we even tell? By knowing the specifics.

And we have not even started to discuss alternative, less heavy-handed measures, like levying a tax on each plastic bag or compulsory minimum prices for them at the store (seems to work great, according to some commenters. It was introduced where I live some time ago but I didn't notice any change because there wasn't much litter even before the change).

Is the disposal rate of garbage bags 100%? Should we also ban them?

I imagine it's much higher, at least 5 nines, mostly because they tend to go straight from their rolls to containing garbage. They also don't blow away so easily.

However we probably should stop using them. Merely banning will just be met with confusion, since they're an integral part of the waste disposal system. But in my experience, and the experience of others in this thread, a good food waste + recycling system virtually eliminates all solid waste, and therefore the need for garbage bags. All solid waste, that is, apart from plastic packaging. Probably we should get rid of that too.

> Do people just throw these things on the ground or into the river?

Sadly, yes. I have seen people in NYC literally drop plastic bags on the ground.

Studies show landfills are the source for 80% of plastic waste found in the oceans, presumably coming from badly managed landfills where garbage washed out by rain, or illegal dumping.

Can you share a link to studies?

There was a discussion about sources of ocean plastic pollution and good amount of source-digging done by fellow HN user here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18731171

There does not seem to be definitive data on the source of plastic pollution in the oceans, so I would really like to see the sources for "80% ocean plastic is from the landfills".

No issues in cambridge. They've had this ban for a few years now. I dont see riots in the street demanding free plastic bags.

That's the fun part about this debate: there's data. It works.

I was doubtful before my local area banned them, now most people love trading a slight inconvenience for a lot less litter.

And then the next area to propose a ban has a similar debate, usually without considering the results of the previous experiment.

A lot of the smaller shops just ignore the ban, though. It's still helped quite a bit, but it hasn't been complete.

Why are you sure there hasn’t been a thorough quantitative analysis? Since many laws require strong reasons, evidence of public support, periods for public comment, votes by politicians, etc., I’d probably assume it was at least somewhat vetted. Did that not happen in New York?

I would agree that the efficiency benefit to society of single use plastic bags is probably difficult to measure, perhaps because the benefit compared to reusable bags is very small, and maybe even goes away completely after there’s a public behavior change and widespread expectation that free bags aren’t available?

There are some known and large and already quantified downsides to single use plastic bags, plastic production is a health hazard for the workers and nearby communities, and consumes non-renewable resources both in production and transportation. Litter on the streets and in the oceans are causing problems. Plastic in landfills leaching into groundwater is an ongoing issue. All for the “benefit” of being able to carry something 100 feet once and then throw away? It seems so incredibly costly and wasteful in return for an immeasurable convenience... how much proof do we really need?

I think I may have misunderstood you, but just to clarify: By “Furthermore this may also be a regressive tax where poor people disproportionately benefit from the benefits provided by single use plastic bags and the rich pay more of the consequences,” are you saying it’s a regressive tax that is biased against the rich and therefore unfair to the rich?

I mean disposable plastic bags benefit the poor more than they hurt the rich. For example, perhaps the poor use those plastic bags as trash bags for other waste instead of buying proper trash bags. I know I often did.

You can use paper bags for the same

Not for anything wet...

Paper cups....

From a European perspective, they can be regressive in the sense that poorer people tend to walk / bus to the shops, where carrying bulkier bags is a pain, whereas car owners can just stash them in the boot.

From what I understand in New York, that dynamic may be reversed though.

Carrying the reusable bags that are typically sold at grocery stores or given out at events would be a pain.

I have some bags that are made of a very thin nylon fabric that fold up into a built-in pocket. They take up very little space. I just keep one or two in my regular "going out of the house" bag, so they're always handy. They're sturdy enough that filling both of them with groceries would be more bulk than I actually want to carry home from the bus, so, AFAIC, the problem is handled.

I guess losing plastic grocery bags as garbage bags might be minorly annoying if they were the only source of plastic waste in my life, but, realistically, there are so very many other single-use plastic bags that aren't covered by any of these bans: Chip bags, bread bags, produce bags, etc. My "bin liners for very small bins" needs are still well covered.

Long story short, I have a hard time believing this will actually hurt less wealthy people in urban areas all that much. It's going to be much more annoying to people who drive to the grocery store and now have to remember to keep enough bags to contain $250 worth of groceries at one time in their car.

I've experienced it from both sides.

First job, living in town within walking distance of shops and work, didn't want to carry a bag of bags, especially in summer without big winter coat pockets, so trips to the shop after work had to be pre planned.

Now have a car with a bag with 20 bags permanently in the boot, easy, no planning required.

In Boston, I usually saw pedestrians bring with them those little folding grocery strollers so that they don’t have to carry the bags. Anyone with that sizeable regular haul of groceries isn’t carrying them by hand all the time.

OK, I misunderstood you completely and was astounded at my interpretation, thank you for clarifying :) In Turkey they introduced a fee for plastic bags and many people were upset because of what you wrote. My mother would never buy garbage bags except the largest ones that could not be substituted by grocery bags.

There is still a surprising amount of plastic bags left even if you eliminate the ones for carrying. The bag toilet paper comes in, for example, works pretty well.

Toilet paper companies in my EU country are already replacing those with paper versions.

Why we do that at home (uk) and we are by no means poor

> the efficiencies they introduce to society at large

What are you talking about?

The most dogged of all reductive points of view is that (1) all processes are Darwinian, and (2) market economic, so therefore (3) if people want plastic bags and get them for a long time, therefore it must be efficient.

It never occurred to people that those premises could all be true, but it’s actually all about what you call efficient, or what the meaning of long time is, or basically any sufficiently arcane detail that would require like, actual knowledge or reading a book.

I usually have reusable canvas and plastic bags, I just don't have a strong incentive to remember to carry them with me. I suspect you'll find people will own a multitude of reusable bags, and given that their value will be driven down by necessity, the higher quality bags will end up becoming trivially affordable and accessible to everyone.

You might ask yourself, "What's already happened at all of the places that have already banned single-use plastic bags?"

I agree. Its hard to decide when to let the market and efficiencies deal with a problem or regulations. I don't have the answer but I always appreciate the discussion and appreciate someone making a decision and finding out what happens next.

> I find there is a worrying lack of thorough quantitative analysis with these types of bans

Maybe monetary cost isn't the most important thing to factor in.

How about an ecological analysis?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com