|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The hidden costs of Vermont’s Plastic Bag Ban—Revisited
by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com
Back in November 2024🎉, we raised concerns about the unintended consequences of Vermont’s plastic bag ban—higher costs, questionable environmental benefits, and burdens on low-income Vermonters. At the time, the policy still enjoyed broad political support and little scrutiny. But now, just a few months later, national media is catching up.
Earlier this month, The New York Times reported on the fallout from New York City’s bag ban, exposing how so-called “reusable” plastic bags are heavier, more wasteful, and often more environmentally damaging than the thin bags they replaced. Sound familiar?
The timing is validating—but also troubling. Because Vermont isn’t just repeating New York’s mistake. We’re doing it under the banner of climate leadership, even as the data shows we’re missing the mark. And under the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), those missed marks carry legal weight.
It’s time to take another look at what this policy is really costing us—environmentally, economically, and ethically. And in light of Vermont’s climate law—the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA)—this policy may be undermining our own carbon reduction targets.
Let’s start with the science.
Paper or Plastic? The Carbon Reality
Paper bags seem eco-friendly, but their environmental footprint is far from benign. Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs)—which evaluate the full energy, water, and pollution costs of a product from manufacture to disposal—repeatedly show that paper bags:
- Emit 2–5 times more greenhouse gases during production than plastic
- Consume 4–10 times more water
- Create 70% more air pollutants and 50x more water pollutants
- Weigh 8–15 times more, increasing transportation and fuel use
For Vermont’s approximately 645,000 residents, grocery stores hand out an estimated 235 million bags per year. If we assume each paper bag generates about 20 grams of CO₂ in transport (compared to just 2 grams for a plastic bag), that means:
Vermont could reduce CO₂ emissions by approximately 4,238 metric tons annually just by switching back to plastic bags.
That’s the carbon equivalent of taking 920 gas-powered cars off the road.
Stat Box: Paper vs. Plastic—The Carbon Cost of Transport
| Factor | Plastic Bag | Paper Bag |
|---|---|---|
| Average weight | ~5 grams | ~55 grams |
| Transport CO₂ per bag | ~2 g | ~20 g |
| Truckloads for 10M bags | ~1 | ~8 |
| VT annual grocery bag use | ~235M bags | ~235M bags |
| Total transport CO₂/year | ~470 tons | ~4,708 tons |
| Carbon savings if switching to plastic | ~4,238 metric tons/year |
How That Impacts GWSA Goals
Under the GWSA, Vermont is legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 26% below 2005 levels by 2025, and 40% by 2030. With the 2005 baseline at ~9.2 million metric tons of CO₂e, the 2025 target is about 6.8 million metric tons.
A 4,200-ton reduction from smarter bag policy may only represent 0.06% of the total goal, but it’s:
- Fast
- Politically low-cost
- Logistically simple
- Entirely within the legislature’s control
If lawmakers are serious about meeting GWSA targets, this is an easy win.
Economic Impact: Lower Costs, Greater Convenience
Switching back to plastic bags wouldn’t just benefit the climate—it would save money for stores and consumers alike.
For Businesses:
- Cost per bag:
- Plastic: $0.01–$0.03
- Paper: $0.10–$0.25
- A mid-size grocer handing out 1 million bags/year could save $70,000–$200,000 annually just on bag procurement.
- Paper bags also require more truckloads to deliver, take up more storage space, and are more prone to ripping—especially in Vermont’s wet or snowy conditions.
For Consumers:
Vermont law requires retailers to charge $0.10 per paper bag handed out at checkout. That means a family making just two grocery trips a week could be paying over $100 per year in bag fees—just for the privilege of carrying food home.
For low-income Vermonters, this is effectively a regressive tax. Wealthier shoppers can afford to stockpile reusable totes. But for families living paycheck to paycheck, that extra $0.10 per bag adds up quickly—especially when grocery prices are already straining household budgets.
And here’s the kicker: they’re paying more, for a bag that produces more emissions and pollution than the one it replaced.
Symbolism over Substance
The policy’s original sin was one of symbolism over substance. The thin, crinkly plastic bags we used to reuse for trash, lunches, or pet waste became a scapegoat for environmental harm, while bulkier, higher-emission alternatives were rushed in to fill the gap.
Most of the new “reusable” plastic bags are made from thicker plastics that require far more resources to produce, and just like in New York, many Vermonters treat them as disposable. As a result, we’re throwing out more plastic than before—and paying more to do it.
Meanwhile, paper bags require cutting trees, using more water and energy in production, and burning extra diesel to ship heavier loads. The net effect? Worse emissions, higher costs, and no measurable gain in sustainability.
Vermont doesn’t have to abandon environmental stewardship. But we do need to re-anchor it in reality. That means looking at:
- Full life-cycle emissions
- Consumer behavior
- Impact on local businesses
- Practicality for low-income families
If our climate laws matter, then every policy should be scrutinized for net carbon impact, not just feel-good optics.
The science is in, the economics are clear, and even The New York Times is starting to acknowledge what Vermonters are living every day: our bag ban isn’t working. It’s time to rethink and revise. Because true sustainability isn’t about appearances. It’s about outcomes.
And this one’s an easy fix.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Environment, News Analysis, State Government
Its so simple, the boxes that the food comes in can be the boxes the food its taken out with, as demonstrated so easily by Co-ops and BJ etc. just demand that the boxes the food came in be made available to customers to take food out with. A bin outside or just inside the store to hold them. DUH da da da da, Duh Da.
You may want to rethink that. There are not enough boxes in most supermarkets to accommodate all the customers that shop there. Secondly, you would need a huge bin inside (it rains in Vermont) or a room for the empty boxes. Also, the boxes are essentially made from the same kind of paper as paper bags. It’s a reasonable way to temporarily “recycle” the boxes, but it’s going to end up in the same recycle or burn bin.
My guess is that you haven’t thought that through.
1) Do realize how many boxes that would be? An these boxes are just going to stacked inside the store? There is not much room for the thousands of boxes this would require.
2) Some box’s are not meant to be reused.
3) Large Retailers now bail cardboard and send them back for recycling. You send these boxes home with consumers and most will never make it to recycling. In winter people that burn wood will use them in their stoves.
And, on a related note, I wonder if recycling is working. How much of what is recycled and given to the garbage business is then deemed not usable and thus thrown back into the land fills or transfer stations and now redefined as real rubbish. Don’t know but do wonder about recycling.
Most cardboard is definitely recycled! The rest is very questionable since China no longer buys and they just dumped it in the Ocean anyway for the most part
Recycling is actually “downcycling.” A lot of chemicals are used to create new products from “recycled” materials, increasing the amount of toxic fumes and particles released into the air, as well as toxins in consumer goods, such as jeans made with recycled water bottles. This information comes from the book “Cradle to Cradle” by William McDonough and Michael Braungart.
The bottle redemption could also be lumped into this. What a waste of time and energy to try and recover your redemption fees in many areas of the state. Most towns do not have redemption sites. Long past time to send it all to the recycling center. Some people have told me they give their returnables to the Boy Scouts.
I suggest if you wish to help them out just give them a few bucks and not pass your problem on to someone else.
Agreed on the bottle bill. It’s obsolete. Besides, if I’m not mistaken when started in 1972 the return was $.05 per bottle… with inflation taken into account, it should really be $.38 per bottle today. Should we do that?
What about the “redemption” charge when we purchase some beverages? Just curious.
Plastic or paper bags???? Both work well when i fill them with bark or small wood pieces and throw them in my wood stove to start my fire in the morning. You solve the problem of disposal and get instant heat as a reward.
I’m so sick of seeing virtue-signalers plop their filthy reusable shopping bags onto the checkout counter, right where my food will go before it’s bagged. I make sure the baggers know to transfer my items directly into a clean paper bag from the conveyor belt. I use paper bags for household trash disposal (before bagging in plastic) and for starting the wood stove. I wonder how much the slush-fund babies received to promote this and other window-dressing-type ‘eco-friendly’ endeavors? I miss those plastic grocery bags!
In fairness: “Food, food products, and beverages are exempt from Vermont Sales and Use Tax under Vermont law 32 V.S.A. § 9741(13) with the exception of soft drinks. Effective July 1, 2015, soft drinks are subject to Vermont tax under 32 V.S.A. § 9701(31) and (54). For further guidance on beverages that qualify as soft drink subject to tax, see Vermont Sales and Use Tax on Soft Drinks.”
On the other hand, the food costs charged by stores and restaurants in Vermont do tend to be higher than in NH because transportation, utility (heat & electric), minimum wages, property taxes, and various other expensive regulations, are higher in VT than in NH.
make the plastic bag the symbol of the vermont progressives
Woke masks are already their symbol.
raises some good points about the environmental merits and problems of each, tho
So a couple of things. The thesis for this article is that the NY Times wrote an article stating that they felt that the plastic bag ban was a failure. Not believing this, I clicked on the link to find that it is behind a paywall. Since I have Apple News, I went and found and read the article.
For starters, the article cited is a picture essay. Ok, second of all, nothing in the article is critical of the plastic bag ban. Here is a quote, “While the state has not collected comprehensive data on how many fewer plastic bags have been used since the ban took effect, a study by the New York City Department of Sanitation found that the prevalence of plastic shopping bags in the waste stream fell 68 percent from 2017 to 2023.” I can paste the entire article if someone wants to call me out.
Lets look at the article itself. The first part of the article is critical of reusable plastic bags. Mind you anecdotally, I’ ve had mine for three years with no problems. I use maybe 30 a year to bring my cans to the dump with. The author claims that 235 million paper bags were handed out in Vermont last year with no evidence or sources cited. Quick division shows an average of 364 PAPER BAGS USED BY A VERMONTER A YEAR. Mind you, I use maybe ten, because again, I use a reusable plastic bag. Again, where did this mind boggling number come from?
This article makes the false equivalence that if 235 million plastic bags are used, then 235 million plastic bags are being used. That’s not happening because again, I use reusable bags. So what are you trying to say?
In addition, as you can read in the comments, when did you start caring about increased Co2 emissions? Right in the comments, the people love more CO2, and you’re stating that its bad?
I could go on, but you get the point. So this article littered (ha,ha) with lies at worst, or sloppy evidence that wouldn’t get an A in middle school at best. I know Guy loves free content because it keeps the costs down, but this article is a joke written to an audience that is going to nod along no matter what. Some of us here can still think though. FYIVT? More like WTF?
Consider the items placed in said bag are wrapped in plastic, encased in a plastic container, in a plastic bottle or jug, gathered into a plastic cart or basket, rolled out and placed into a vehicle constructed with parts made of plastic, and then checking for messages on a smart phone made mostly of plastic, snuggled in a plastic case.
Above all of that, the amount of petroleum and diesel used to get all those items to the store is a gargantuan detail all virtue signalers and peddlers of lies conveniently deflect and reject.
Such is life in this modern day penal colonly! Logic, reason, and common sense is frowned upon. It is all by design by the overloards and their henchmen, henchwomen, and hench-self-identified dysphorics.
The same people that wanted to ban paper bags and go to plastic because we were killing all the trees, now they want us to use paper bags to save the environment from plastic. They wanted to save the whales now they are killing the whales with windmills. As so not to pollute the earth they want us to drive electric cars with batteries that have some of the most toxic substances in them on the planet. And solar farms that replace food farms. When the solar panels ware out where do we store those toxic substances from the panels or do we just leave them in place along with the windmills as monuments to Commiecrat stupidity.
No more plastic surgery. Must resort to wood or copper.
I like to throw my paper bags in the woodstove after i get home and unload them. I wonder how that figures into the equation?