\Beginning in 2027, Senate Bill 551 will ensure that retailers and restaurants can’t offer any form of plastic bags to customers at check out.
That’s already true for most single-use plastic bags because of a bill lawmakers passed in 2019. But the law left open the option that stores could offer slightly thicker plastic bags that are considered reusable — but that critics say are often tossed.
SB 551, does away with that loophole, making bags made of recycled paper the only option stores and restaurants now have. The bill does not impact grocers’ ability to offer plastic bags for bulk goods, raw meat or some other items.
This is not nearly the slam-dunk that Democrats in the Oregon legislature believe it to be. As per usual, the truth is a lot more nuanced. A ban of so-called “single-use”—everybody I know used them at least twice—plastic bags has two advantages:
- A ban significantly reduces litter and, in particular, maritime pollution.
- It reduces non-biodegradable waste. Plastic bags don’t decompose—they break into microplastics.
That’s not nothing, but we need to acknowledge that it’s a trade-off:
- Most alternatives to plastic bags require more energy and resources. You’d have to use a cotton tote thousands of times to breakeven in terms of the carbon footprint. You’d have to reuse a paper bag 43 times.
- Because the “single-use” plastic bags were actually used as trash liners or for pet waste, people have to buy thicker plastic bags as a substitute, off setting environmental gains. In fact, plastic bag bans reduce visible waste but increase CO2 emissions because of this.
- “Single-use” plastic bags are both wildly convenient and versatile. A ban adds friction to a lot of people’s lives.
The best alternative, and environmentally speaking it’s not close, is actually the Costco solution: Boxes. Why boxes?
- It’s reused packaging from boxes used to ship products to stores.
- There’s no new production cost, so environmentally it’s sound.
- Cardboard is highly recyclable and breaks down readily if littered.
Undoubtedly, this is less convenient. Boxes are frequently awkward with no handles. But it’s easily the best solution environmentally, and it can’t be argued that it won’t work: Costco already does it and has done it for years.
So what should the legislature have done? Incentivize box use by retailers and tax single use plastic bags whilst using the funds toward environmental damage mitigation. Ban single use plastics, but do it along waterways. Geographically targeted bans deliver a greater environmental return per enforcement dollar while avoiding unnecessary regulation in low-risk areas (dry, inland, rural zones). Cover the Coast and the Willamette Valley. For geographic and populations reasons, Eastern Oregon doesn’t really benefit from a plastics ban—all it does it give those folks another example of meaningless governmental intrusion into their lives (and they’re not wrong).