Why 5 cent charges for plastic bags work | Hacker News Reader

Why 5 cent charges for plastic bags work

washingtonpost.com

20 pointsnkurz43 comments

Perhaps I've grown too cynical in my old age, but I always figured this was just the grocery lobbies' doing.

We could outright ban the bags (which we have for plastic, not paper). Instead, they literally nickel and dime you every time you shop.

Sure 10 cents a bag isn't a big deal, but 3-4 across millions of customers per year, and now you're talking serious cash.

In the article, they note that a study found that the small plastic bag charges tended to strongly influence behavior without an outright ban.

Personally, I see it as a win/win. The grocery stores get more money from people obsessed with plastic bags, and the municipality reduces the number of plastic bags wasted.

I just moved up from DC to NJ. It definitely modified by behavior. Down there, I didn't want to pay the five cent tax. (IIRC, I think the five cents went to Chesapeake Bay cleanup or something like that. It wasn't more money for the store.) Now that I am in NJ -- where there is no tax -- I still instinctually say, "no bag, thanks."

I actually did read the article and saw that. That tidbit was interesting.

I understand your view and hence why I called myself cynical.

It strongly affects behavior but also perception of shopping, making it even more miserable.

In your opinion. We have had a similar policy here in Australia for many years and it has had no impact to consumer confidence or shopping behaviour.

People who find the concept to be miserable should rethink their attitude.

Or perhaps they should remain free to have whatever response they have rather than the one you feel they 'should' have.

Yes, I think you are being cynical. If grocers wanted people to use fewer bags, they didn't need to ask the government to create a new tax. They could have simply started charging for them, which would have reduced demand AND they'd get to keep all the nickels and dimes it brings in AND there's no risk of a fine for forgetting to do it.

Also I wouldn't assume that a ban would be more effective than a tax.

most grocery stores in the northeast discount you 5 cents for each re-usable bag you use, all on their own. they've done this for at least a decade. the bags aren't cheap, and the grocery store bundles the cost of them into products.

Does the store get the money, or the government? I thought it was essentially a tax that's sent on to government coffers.

EDIT- In Los Angeles county at least, the fee is retained by the stores 'to help with the cost of compliance'. Whatever that means.

I like the plastic bag ban because cashiers and other shoppers don't look at me weird for NOT wanting a bag. Multiple times before the bag ban in my town, I would ask for no bags, because the item I bought is already tightly packaged. I would get the weirdest look from people... Maybe it was all in my head, but whatever, it works.

I get the same thing where I live. I use a plastic crate which not only means things don't fall over in the car boot, but it's also very quick to pack at the checkout.

Yes - I think the fees work partially because they make it socially acceptable to bring your own bag.

Even though the 'reason' people cite for bringing the bags is environmental responsibility, they didn't bring them before because their fear of being 'weird' stopped them.

I may be projecting.

> I like the plastic bag ban because cashiers and other shoppers don't look at me weird for NOT wanting a bag

This has to be the most ridiculous concern to come out of all of this. If this is the worst thing to happen to you, congratulations.

When the bag tax was added in DC, cashiers stopped bagging items by default. I'd bet that a $0.01 tax would work nearly as well; I don't think it's about the money.

To their credit, the city also apparently did a very good job of educating business owners and enforcing the tax. Compliance seems very high.

They passed a bylaw here about ten years ago adding a 5¢ fee per bag 'for the environment' with the idea that the penance of paying for your bags was outweighed by the blessing your of donation, which was going counterbalance your minor environmental transgression and balance your eco-karma again.

I don't mind paying for bags if I know the 5¢ is actually going to make an impact on the world I live in, but I fear that over the years every bag I've ever paid for has done nothing but pad the profits of a company already dedicated to destroying the environment I live in and instead offsets the 'eco-karma' cost to me.

It's not about eco-karma or mamacorps, and it's not actually a fee/tax.

It simply prevents the fact that if you give something for free, people will waste it - it's a consumerist instinct.

I've lived through both conditions and I found horrifying how people would take large amounts of bags, at stores, and napkins, at restaurants, just because they were free. Set a minimal fee, and clients will start to take just what they need, and no more (which paradoxically, is the opposite instict - not to waste money).

Why haven't you gotten reusable shopping bags in the ten years since that fee was instated? That's the purpose of these programs.

I was wondering if they can apply the same concept to recyclable materials? Charge around 50 cents for each bottle extra, but then get refunded 50 cents when you recycle the bottle so it causes the customer to recycle more and if not, someone else will pick up the bottle themselves

In Canada some provinces use this method. To the best of my knowledge the ones who have the best results is New-Brunswick which charges a fee for every item from this list : soft drinks, beer, wine, spirits, water and flavoured waters, fruit and vegetable juices, low alcohol drinks. The fee is 10 cents for everything except for alcoholic beverage over 500ml which have a fee of 20 cents. When you bring it back they give you half of that back. The bottles are processed by hand, giving job opportunities to many people. In 2010-2011, the program achieved a 79% recovery rate.

Here is some more info on the program : http://www.ec.gc.ca/gdd-mw/default.asp?lang=En&xml=0822FE9A-...

In the province in which I live in (Quebec), the fees are the same but they give you back the whole fee. This means that the program costs more so to stay profitable the bottles are not hand processed. This means that there is less jobs created as a whole. However, since you receive twice as much when you collect bottles many people under the poverty line attend big events in hope to collect the bottles left behind by those who don't care. I've met a guy who was riding his bike with a small trailer who was making up to 400$ a day picking up bottles ! It obviously does not happen every day but it gives you an idea. Sometimes I drink in the park with my friends and some guy will come up to us and ask which bottles we are done with and he'd take care of them for us.

I've heard that in Denmark they actually have an over 100% recovery rate because of bottles and cans coming in from other countries. If I remember right they charge $1 for deposit.

$0.17, $0.25 or $0.50 depending on can/bottle size. If prizes were much higher I think people would get into fights over empty cans in parks and at festivals. After all it's basically "collect three empty beers, get one for free".

In Demark? Even the weak as piss beer is expensive.

Most states in the USA do exactly this already.

From the sound of it, Michigan does it very well with their 10 cent deposit, and allowing most people to claim their deposit back right at the grocery store. California (with 5 cent CRV) is miserable with the places where we are supposed to claim our deposits being overrun with homeless and the places themselves not being all that great (I'm speaking from my experience in Orange County, YMMV).

Only 11 states.[1] (That's more than I thought.)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_deposit_legislation_i...

Less than a dozen states, nowhere near most.

In California, the deposit on milk bottles is 1.50, and you get the deposit back when you bring the bottles back to the store. I associate bottled milk as having premium quality, even though the total price after redemption is similar to wax carton milk.

CA also has CRV (Container recycle value, basically, .5/.10 ea), but it isn't a straight redemption value. You can turn in up to 50 containers of each type for a CRV refund, but after 50 you only get the CRV returned by weight.

Some counties in CA have a plastic bag ban, with paper bags for .10 and compostable plastic bags for .25. You can get reusable bags for as little as $2 at the register too.

CRV: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Recyclers/Director...

Bag ban: http://sfenvironment.org/article/prevent-waste/checkout-bag-...

Clarification: CRV can refer to

"California Refund Value" - the amount recycling centers pay to consumers in exchange for empty bottles and cans, or

"California Redemption Value" - a deposit paid on sales of certain recyclable beverage containers.

I was just thinking about bottle deposits the other day. In places where they offer a bottle deposit and a refund when you return it do they consider those bottles your purchased property, or in those places do you just buy the drink and lease the bottle until it's returned?

Is there an expectation of returning bottles in places that offer a refund, and does it affect your legal entitlement to the bottle in any way?

In the city where I live, bottles are property of the customer, but there is a formal pledge of having it refunded in case it's returned.

The former in Michigan, where I was raised. $0.10/bottle, and seen as property (socially).

I really dislike this idea. Living in an apartment means I put my recycling in a communal receptacle which is then put out by the building. If you had this rule I might feel compelled to take the extra time to bring my recycling over the the store or what ever to get the refund. Overall I see that as inefficient and annoying.

It depends on how one has been educated.

A minimal fee (for example, 10c per bottle) is very advantageous, because people with higher salaries will just throw them not minding the minimal economic waste. People in the middle will return them while doing the grocery. Finally, poor people will hunt for them.

All of this, saves lots of garbage around.

It also tends to create a secondary economy, where people will go through your recyclables or pick through public recycling receptacles collecting containers and claiming the crv.

It makes the recycling trucks that go around sort of redundant.

Bottles pretty much never make it from our recycling bin to the truck. Every single morning there's people scavenging all the bins in the neighborhood in a systematic way. I don't mind, really, since it all ends up in the same place anyway.

recycling trucks have regardless much work to do, they certainly don't become redundant.

in real life, having people going around picking bottles is actually very convenient, as keeps the city cleaner.

That's how beer and glass water bottles are handled in Belgium.

It's been like this for at least 30 years, and it works fine.

In Portland, Oregon, the five cents a piece that we got from schlepping giant bags of empties to Freddy Meyer's enabled us to drink far longer than we could afford to.

What does the headline mean? What does "work" mean? More money for the store? An increased in illness as people use dirty bags? It would have been nice to indicate what this means at the beginning of the article.

Of course, all that's really happened is I've replaced the free plastic bags from the grocery store with non-free garbage bags from the same store. I still use the same amount of plastic.

Get it from amazon for 2 cents a bag and tell the bagger you'll use your own bags.

http://www.amazon.com/T-Shirt-Carryout-Bags--Thank-Gracias/d...

Really? I always find the garbage bags you buy use much less plastic than the thick carry grocery store ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com