Hacker News Reader

The OP was talking about "bag bans". Your linked article talks about a "bag charge". Those are totally different things. Bag bans force forgetful people to buy "reusable" bags that take more plastic to produce, and inevitably pile up an need to be disposed of. Bag charges don't have that issue, because you can continue to buy thin bags, just at a steep markup.

View on HN

Taxes are almost always the best way to implement "bans", you get huge benefits:

1. People feel less aggrieved if they still can technically access something at a price. ( Less accusation of Government overreach. )

2. Economically nudging behaviour is extremely effective. People will do a surprisingly amount of work/effort to avoid even a small cost.

3. If people continue the behaviour you want to ban, you get a good revenue stream, and can escalate taxes ( e.g. Tobacco taxes )

4. It reduces the size of a black market emerging for the banned goods ( i.e. Don't make the mistakes of USA during Prohibition. )

That California didn't realise this and naively implemented a concrete ban is screwing up implementing a ban.

Most shops in Ire/UK have stopped providing thin plastic bags for sale. All bags are either bags for life or (much) more expensive reusable plastic bags. Only small convenience stores still have the thin bags available.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com