New Jersey’s ban a failure. What about Vermont’s?
by Rob Roper
As folks may recall, back in 2019 banning so-called single use plastic bags was all the rage in the radical leftist environmental circles, so naturally the sociopathic control freaks in the Vermont legislature had to have one – the legislative equivalent of that year’s Cabbage Patch doll. So, we got our bag ban!
So did New Jersey. The only difference being that unlike in Vermont, where the last year’s Cabbage Patch doll is quickly discarded and forgotten, displaced by a wailing obsession to get a Tickle Me Elmo, New Jersey actually looked back to see if the policy worked. It did not.
News outlets across the Tri-State Area and the nation recently blared headlines like, New Jersey Plastic Bag Ban Goes Bust (WSJ), Is the State’s Plastic Bag Ban Losing Its Grip? (Two River Times), and New Jersey’s plastic consumption triples after plastic bag ban enacted (USA Today).
A summary of the study done by the Fredonia Group concludes that, while the number of single use plastic bags in circulation did decline dramatically, as intended, the unintended economic and environmental consequences of the policy far outweigh the benefits.
… following New Jersey’s ban of single-use bags, the shift from plastic film to alternative bags resulted in a nearly 3x increase in plastic consumption for bags. At the same time, 6x more woven and non-woven polypropylene plastic was consumed to produce the reusable bags sold to consumers as an alternative. Most of these alternative bags are made with non-woven polypropylene, which is not widely recycled in the United States and does not typically contain any post-consumer recycled materials. This shift in material also resulted in a notable environmental impact, with the increased consumption of polypropylene bags contributing to a 500% increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to non-woven polypropylene bag production in 2015. Notably, non-woven polypropylene, NWPP, the dominant alternative bag material, consumes over 15 times more plastic and generates more than five times the amount of GHG emissions during production per bag than polyethylene plastic bags. [Emphasis added.]
How could this happen? Politicians expected consumers to re-use the so-called reusable bags (that aren’t especially reusable) over and over and over again. This is not happening for a variety of reasons. People forget the bags at home and have to buy new ones every time they go to the store. As more people use grocery delivery services, those services use new “re-usable” bags for each and every delivery. And there is a sanitary component to this as well. Reusable bags accumulate bacteria and can quickly become unhealthy options, so people very sensibly toss them after only a couple of trips to the store. Moreover, both the cost and environmental impact of washing the bags is greater than that of using just utilizing the single use plastic bags, so forget that.
But, in fairness to the big brains in Montpelier, who really could have seen this coming? Oh yeah… From 2019: Roper: How dumb is the plastic bag ban?
Consumers have also paid a heavy price for this worse than useless policy. Major retailers are taking advantage of the ban to squeeze customers into buying more and more of these expensive, “reusable” bags that seldom get re-used. The Fredonia study revealed that just one major retailer in New Jersey made an estimated $42 million in profits just selling these stupid bags.
So, in a nutshell, instead of getting a free, handy, single use plastic bag that you probably re-used to line your kitchen garbage can or some such thing, now we everyday citizens get to pay tens if not hundreds of millions of extra dollars in order to put three times the amount of un-recyclable plastic into the environment and five times the greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, while providing a government mandated windfall profit to WalMart. Brilliant, Senator Chris Bray (D-Addison), et al. Just… freakin’… brilliant!
As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board concluded in its analysis, “Too often the idea behind green initiatives seems to be that if it’s inflicting pain, it must be working. But the road to this plastic misfire was paved with green intentions—untempered by any serious cost-benefit analysis.” Personally, I don’t think legislators who push these nutty ideas care if a policy works or not. It’s the thrill of using their power to inflict pain that motivates them; forcing people to do what they say. It’s a sickness.
They could prove me wrong by seriously revisiting the issue, embarking on serious cost benefit analysis, and repealing the bag ban (and the Clean Heat Standard, and Act 127, and defunding the police, etc. and so on). But I’m taking bets that they won’t. Where’s the thrill in that?
RELATED: Though it didn’t receive the hype that NJ’s bag ban failure received, here’s a very interesting analysis from California, the first state to ban plastic bags. A similar failure.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Environment, National/International News, State Government
Now consider all the masks that people were required to wear to stop transmission of the C virus. These masks amounted to nothing more than spit guards, which was their intended use in the medical profession, prior to COVID-19. A parent group sent a number of these masks to a lab and paid to have them analyzed. The masks that children were forced to wear all day contained ecoli and other bacteria. Wearing a mask is like breathing through your undergarment. What was the cost benefit relative to prevention and environmental impact?
like those plastic bags/// put all my junk mail begging for money in to these bags and use it to start my wood stove/// none of this heat end up in a land fill
Kinda like using gallons of water to wash the peanut butter jar before putting it in the recycling.
Just another example of Nancy Pelosi/Obama Care style of governance, “Just pass it then we will worry about (the outcome) what it says”. Like S5 and so many other knee jerk reactions to a non existent or unstudied stimulus .
Mr. Roper, I’m glad I live in Vermont, not New Jersey.
Ive used the same reusable bags since the plastic bag ban (which is a massive success) Only a guy like Roper would argue, “actually, plastic bags are good for the environment.” and be able to say that with a straight face because he is on the take. This is why normal people don’t take the right seriously.
I have to agree. Be it from ‘the right’ or ‘the left’, any legislation that is poorly constructed is problematic. The problem with the ban on single-use plastic bags wasn’t the intent, it was the loophole that created demand for an even more destructive plastic bag to take its place.
There are many reasonable alternatives that can improve the current plastic problem. Unfortunately, we have presumptuous idiots (on the left and the right) writing the legislation to, ostensibly, correct the problem.
The problem will be solved, sooner than later in fact, by companies who are currently automating the shopping experience and incorporating reusable ‘pods’, not only to carry produce, but to deliver it to the consumer and retrieve the container.
But as with anything managed by a centrally controlled political consortium, those who operate in its confines can’t keep up with advancement in technology and are ever more likely to continue to make mistaken judgments, not because they’re evil, so much as they simply aren’t trained to do what they do.
Unfortunately too, we voters and consumers don’t know any better either. Not because the technology is too complicated to understand, but because we’re too lazy to do the research and we use the issue for political furtherance (i.e., blaming the ‘left’ or the ‘right’).
Oh my God, Jay, you’re worse than Christine, agreeing with me and explaining how I’m not smart enough to come to my own conclusion. Actually, plastic bags was a simple problem that was solved with a simple solution.
“There are many reasonable alternatives that can improve the current plastic problem”
Its called a paper bag and was intentionally left out of this article because Roper is a corporate shill (not even a good one) We all just started using paper bags, something that is renewable, recyclable and creates Vermont jobs. Where is the study on the rise of paper bags in the average household? Its not there because it blows a hole through this entire argument. I’m going to the dump today, I counted 17 of them going right into the cardboard to rise again, just Jesus.
You have every right to comment on my posts and sometimes l like to hear what you have to say, but pump the brakes giving me advice. Of course, I get it, you’re a “research” guy and no one can see the forest for the trees except for you. Not everything is a conspiracy theory. For example: “The problem with the ban on single-use plastic bags wasn’t the intent, it was the loophole that created demand for an even more destructive plastic bag to take its place.” This isn’t even remotely true, sometimes people just don’t want plastic bags everywhere. Banning plastic bags isn’t leading to a world where goods are delivered to your house (which already has existed for decades????) and if it did, it sounds awesome. I don’t even get what your point was, guess that I’ll have to do some more research
Chris (whoever you are), I didn’t give you any advice, nor did I intend to do so. I simply made a comment for all VDC readers to consider (including you and Mr. Roper) based on the point you raised. I agree, plastic bags aren’t good for the environment. Frankly, however, I couldn’t care less that you, personally, think one way or the other, because you consistently misinterpret and/or misrepresent what others actually say. The plastic bag issue isn’t about Mr. Roper or me or Ms. Stone. And it most certainly isn’t about you, much as you appear to want to make it out to be so.
Hi Chris. I didn’t say film plastic bags were good for the environment. What the article points out is that the policy “solution” put in place by the geniuses in Montpelier made the plastic pollution and ghg emissions problems worse. As for your claim that paper bags are the solution, if that was the solution the law was aiming for it wouldn’t have mandated a ten cent charge per paper bag. The law is anti paper bag as well.
If abortion can be good (Dictionary- Abortion: to end the normal development of…..the termination of pregnancy followed by the DEATH of the fetus….). The commonly termed “fetus” (Dictionary – Fetus: An unborn…..a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth) ———- then, it can indubitably also be considered that plastic bags are good for the environment.
And this is why people with a conscience don’t pay any mind to the left.
Leftists: Plastics bags are injurious to the environment. Murder of the unborn is good for parents and often under certain circumstances – even the unborn murder victim themselves.
Roper didn’t argue for it. He reported on another states finding. I do believe that Vermont has better results because people bring bags and resuse them. Regardless, it is an interesting study.
I know that you want to disagree with me even when you agree with me, so go check that second paragraph. Real reporting isn’t filled with, “yeah, buts” by the way. It is not an interesting study, it is a stupid study bought and paid for by the petroleum industry, which is why I accurately referred to Roper as a sellout. Good for him being one of the two Republicans in the state that actually makes money without inheriting it tho.
My error Chris. The difference is that I am not intentionally disrespectful and condescending. I can admit when I misread/interpreted something. A little humility goes a long way.
“A little humility goes a long way.” If you really believed that, you would have stopped at, “My error,” and not been intentionally disrespectful telling me how you’re not intentionally disrespectful. If my posts bother you, how about you just move on? I’m not getting anything out of this and in three posts, you haven’t had anything to say other than you are frustrated that you agree with someone you don’t like and are handling it with grace and aplomb.
There policies are never about saving the environment, they are about signaling their “climate virtue” and controlling every step of your life, all of which are the fruit of Marxist thought.
They want you fighting over the issues they declare.
Of course, if we never offer true stewardship, CONSERVATION, of our resources where is somebody to go? They vote dem.
This keeps everybody in their perspective camps, not coming together in love and unity solving our problems and we do have environmental issues that all can agree on.
The arguments in the column prove my point. The voting and division within Vermont prove my point. The uniparty having complete control over a divided state, known as the Green Mountain state, prove my point.
What bone could we throw? Kei trucks being allowed in Vermont, great reliable little trucks from Japan that get 30+ mpg, don’t break down and can be had for little money.
Getting rid of tax on any vehicle that get’s better than 30mpg combined.
These are good for Vermonters, Good for the environment, good for VTGOP……they hold true to helping the poor, tax relief and helping the environment. The VTDEMs would fight this tooth and nail, which exposes their true intentions.
Don’t play their game. Don’t let them frame the conversation. Don’t let them take the football, just before you kick it….
We need to be wiser than snakes and more innocent than doves.
Common sense went out the window a long time ago, and esp. in our Legislature. Sad to say.
Yes, the one-use WalMart plastic bags are a tremendous convenience. Yes, a lot of us re-use them for this, that, or the other. We use them for dirty kitty litter. The handles can be tied shut and voila, no more odors. Plus, many seniors can’t easily lift a re-useable plastic bags when they’re filled to the top with groceries. Also yes, paper bags were used going back I don’t know how far. Certainly the entirety of my lifetime. They’re easy to recycle and they worked well. Also yes, re-useable bags are, well… re-useable!
But what’s wrong with paper bags? Why did we get away from them if they’re the solution that solves everyone’s complaints? What’s wrong is all these stores charging a nickel or a dime to purchase what they offered free for decades upon decades. What’s a nickel or a dime? Maybe 30-60 cents per grocery run. $15-$30 per year. For me, that’s a tank of gas. For a senior, that’s yet another bite out of their limited income. I get it, grocery stores especially survive on very miniscule margins so it’s definitely to their advantage to charge for paper bags.
But in the end, are one-use or re-usable plastic bags more or less of an ecological nightmare than paper bags? I don’t think any sane person would answer “less”.
And a final comment on this comment: “…he is on the take. This is why normal people don’t take the right seriously.” No, my friend. This is exactly why the right doesn’t take the left seriously. They always accuse the right of exactly what they’re guilty of. Mirrors.
the next time you buy food only/// count the plastic bags and divide into the amount of the bill/// it most likely will be at least 20.00 per bag///
Just another boondoggle piece of legislation, no value added just an inconvenience for everyday citizens……. Again Vermont legislators wanting to be the first……..
Maybe this climate-saving gang should look at the rest of the world for the real polluters…………….not me going to the grocery store !!
Vermont is leading in one thing, stupidity from Montpelier.
Don’t feed the trolls. Don’t attempt civil discourse, it confuses and angers them.
I’m sorry but richness of this discussion is going right over my head. I’m distracted by one of the imbedded issues; the need to have impact auditing built into any law that’s passes. Shouldn’t “dependent” variables be identified with data collection protocols and a time table for legislative review? Isn’t the current culture of passing laws willy-nilly poor practice?
News alert
Stores in West Lebanon, Woodsville, Claremont and others politely provide their customers with plastic bags …. FREE!