Right: A plastic bag washed up on an Australian beach, but is plastic waste really a threat to the oceans?Arguments against banning plastic bags
1. The contribution to pollution and the environmental harm caused by plastic bags has been exaggerated
Plastic bags represent only 20,000 tonnes of waste or 0.1% of Australia's land-filled waste. Therefore, it has been claimed, banning plastic bags would have no significant effect on waste pollution and landfill.
It is further claimed that in terms of Australia's total waste plastics problem, plastic bags make a negligible contribution. Approximately 6.9 billion bags are currently consumed in Australia per year - equivalent to over 36 850 tonnes of polymer. However, 36 850 tonnes of polymer is equivalent to only 2.5% of total plastics consumed in Australia per year by weight (approximately 1.5 million tonnes); or 1% of total packaging consumed in Australia per year by weight (approximately 3 million tonnes).
Relatedly, it has been claimed that many plastic bags are not simply dumped, or if they are, it is as containers for other rubbish. Due to their general usefulness in carrying and containing objects, many plastic shopping bags are used beyond their 'single use' life. Reuse applications include waste bags or bin liners; lunch bags and general carry bags (for example, for gym or pool gear and picnic supplies.)
Surveys carried out by the Plastics Industries Association (1992) indicated that 85% of people reused plastic shopping bags for some application, and a more recent survey carried out by Quantum for the CEPA Trust (2002) found that 75% of people reused shopping bags as bin liners or waste bags, with other reuses on top of this again.
As it is unlikely that all the bags that this percentage of people takes home are reused, it is estimated that approximately 60% of the bags taken home are reused. This dramatically reduces the supposed environmentally harm that the approximately seven billion plastic bags supplied annually in Australia is likely to cause.
The Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association (PACIA) has also argued that there is no reliable evidence that plastic bags harm wildlife. 'In fact,' PACIA has stated, 'when the Queensland Government insisted that plastic fishing bait bags be made of degradable plastic against the industry's advice, there was an increase in littering as people's attitude was: "It doesn't matter, it will degrade". This action increased the litter problem and risk to marine and birdlife because the bags gradually degraded to "bite-sized" pieces.' The conclusion drawn was that the standard plastic bag was a less hazardous alternative for wildlife.
2. Plastic bags are convenient for consumers and retailers
It has been argued that plastic bags are a reliable, cheap and efficient form of packaging for both consumers and retailers and their removal would disadvantage both groups.
The current plastic shopping bag is cheap, lightweight, functional, moisture resistant, allows for quick packing at the supermarket and is very strong for its weight.
The bags have the further advantage of allowing for quick and hygienic retail service. This is particularly the case at supermarkets, where over 40% of customer complaints are related to check-out times. Tests with bag-free lanes show people want speed and convenience.
Plastic bags also currently perform an important task in product and food safety, keeping uncooked meat or cleaning products separate from other foods. It has been suggested that there are health problems associated with contaminated bags used previously for fresh meat or cleaning products, then for vegetables.
In 2005, a joint project was carried out between the City of Fremantle and research student Ivonna Danbergs. The survey involved 92 community members who were asked about their shopping habits in Fremantle. Survey participants were asked how many plastic bags they used each week and if they were prepared to change to alternative bags. The survey found plastic bags are still widely used - 24 per cent of those surveyed collected more than six bags on each shopping trip, 62 per cent collected one to five and 14 per cent collected none.
'The ready availability of plastic bags, their convenience and the difficulties arising from forgetting to take alternative bags rated as the key barriers to switching over to alternative bags,' Ms Danbergs said.
The Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association's (PACIA) Internet site outlines the advantages of plastic bags and the disadvantages of many of the disadvantages of the alternatives. The site claims that alternatives to plastic bags are not practical for many people as shopping habits have changed and consumers shop more often and on impulse. This means they are unlikely to come equipped with re-usable cotton or other bags. Relatedly population change means that there are larger numbers of older people shopping for goods. This makes the weight of over-filled fabric bags an issue.
3. Banning plastic bags will be expensive for consumers, retailers and manufacturers
In a recent Australian survey, 51% of the retailer said cost was the reason why they used plastic bags. 46% said it was a habit. 43% also stated that convenience was a reason. Retailers who are not ordering plastic bag alternatives also said it was due to cost (40%)
Most plastic shopping bags cost only one or two cents each, which is generally built into the product cost and represents much less than 1% of the total transaction cost.
It is estimated that the annual average cost per household for plastic shopping bags is likely to be between $10-15 per year. This, it is claimed, is a very low cost for the advantages the bags supply.
Another expensive consequence has been suggested as result of any ban on plastic bags. The use of fabric bags has been associated with an additional opportunity to shoplift. Any increased shoplifting and trolley stealing costs will be passed on to the consumer while slower checkouts result in increase costs for consumers.
At present, paper sacks cost about 2 1/2 times more than plastic. This may fluctuate depending on the relative costs of petroleum and pulpwood, but with plastic being six to eight times as compact as paper, plastic will always win out when it comes to comparing transportation and storage expenses for the two kinds of bags.
4. Plastic bags have environmental advantages
It has been claimed that plastic bags can help contain other forms of litter and prevent it leaching out of landfill and other sites and polluting the soil and contaminating the watertable.
Several independent analyses have concluded that using heavier duty, reusable plastic bags saves on resources as less bags in total need to be produced - especially those bags that can be recycled at the end of their life.
Stronger carry bags, unlike the lightweight bags, are also less likely to be littered and, even if they are, they are unlikely to be transported into sensitive environments like oceans and rivers.
Most households use plastic shopping bags to line rubbish bins. It has been claimed that this is a very appropriate second use. The bags do not degrade in landfill, so less greenhouse gases are emitted and ground water is less polluted. Indeed it has been argued that using plastic bags to contain other forms of rubbish in landfill is an environmentally friendly thing to do.
All plastic waste to landfill represents only around 4% of landfill. It has been argued that the main issue with landfill is too much organic matter (15% is food) which when degrading emits tonnes of greenhouse gases. Containing this waste in plastic bags may reduce its release to the environment.
The manufacture of plastic bags requires only a small amount of natural gas and petroleum. Thanks to advances in resins, today's plastic bags use 25 percent less material than bags made in 1987, without compromising strength. It takes seven trucks to deliver the quantity of paper bags contained in one truckload of plastic bags.
Most bags are made of polyethylene, selected for its durability, strength and cost-effectiveness. Retail packaging (i.e., grocery sacks, consumer trash bags, merchandise bags, household bags and wraps, laundry and garment bags and self-serve and wet packs) accounts for 29 percent of the polyethylene film market.
5. Alternatives to plastic bags cause environmental harm
It has been noted that all the alternatives to plastic bags also cause environmental harm. It has further been claimed that in some instances these alternatives actually cause greater harm.
On April 3, 2008, one of the online commentators published in New Scientist observed, 'The cotton bags sold [as alternatives to plastic bags] are made from a crop which is by far the most expensive fibre yet grown in terms of water use, pesticide and energy input. Green it ain't! (And that is without considering third world exploitation to grow cotton)
Give me the humble PE shopping bag for energy efficiency and fit for purpose - something that cannot be said of its "pretend natural" rivals.'
It has further been noted that many of the reusable bags sold in supermarkets are in fact not woven at all. It has been claimed, 'The green bags are actually made from non-woven polypropylene, which looks like woven cotton, but is designed to not actually break down in the environment. Polypropylene is a byproduct of oil refining, so not only is it not biodegradable, but is supported by both the depletion of fossil fuels and the creation of greenhouse gases.'
In an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on April 25, 2005, it was stated, 'A CSIRO research scientist, Dr Mike O'Shea, says the green bag's only environmental credential is that it is not the single-use high-density polyethylene plastic bag still given out in most shops and supermarkets.
The green bags, which are made from non-woven polypropylene, are designed to have a relatively long life but they are not designed to break down in the compost heap, he says.
Polypropylene is a byproduct of oil refining, O'Shea says. Produced during the process is propylene gas, which, when put into a reactor, becomes propylene powder. After stabilisers are mixed with the powder, it is placed in an extruder, which produces propylene pellets, which can then be turned into a range of things including car bumper bars and food containers. If the pellets are melted, they can be made into a fibre which can then be made into bags.'
Concerns have also been expressed about paper bags as an alternative to plastic bags. Indeed there are many who claim that paper bags are not the answer, since independent studies show they have as many, if not more, negative impacts as plastic ones. Hank Green writing for Eco Geek in January 2008 noted, 'It turns out, the greenest thing about paper bags is the way people perceive them. Because they seem more natural, people think they're better for the environment. Well, it's a damn shame, but they're wrong...
Creating recycled paper, it turns out, is a much more energy-intensive process than creating plastic bags. Plastic is also much easier to ship, as it takes up way less space in packing, and they weigh far less per item of shopping you take home with you.'
Replacing plastic carry bags with chunky brown paper bags would also have a negative environmental effect, according to a study by Allen Consulting which estimated that greenhouse gases emitted in producing a paper bag were five times greater than those from producing a plastic bag.
Paper bags use both renewable and non-renewable resources in their production. In fact, production of plastic grocery sacks uses 20 percent to 40 percent less total energy than paper sacks, and results in 80 percent less waste.
6. There should be a general move toward effective recycling and waste reduction measures
It has been claimed that plastic bags are a visible symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. According to this line of argument, the fundamental problem is littering and poor waste disposal practices, including a failure to recycle.
Australian Retailers Association chief executive officer, Mr Richard Evans, has claimed that the government was playing 'popular politics' and the emphasis should be on litter management.
Mr Evans stated, 'What I am calling on the government to do is rather than heavy-handed populist politics, start talking to the broader community in terms of litter management.'
Mr Evans argues that plastic bags constitute only a very small component of Australia's litter problem and that rather than banning these bags we should be looking at how as a nation we dispose of all forms of litter.
Mr Mike Ritchie, the general manager of SITA Environmental Solutions, a national recycling and waste service provider, and president of the NSW branch of the Waste Management Association of Australia supports the banning of plastic bags, however, he argues that these products are only a very small part of the problem.
Mr Ritchie has stated, 'There's no question that we could all do much better in recycling and waste management. While newspaper recycling is an excellent 73%, business recycling rates are much lower. For example, only 11% of office paper is recycled and only 50% of cardboard nationally.
We need to implement the newly available technologies. We need to ramp up the introduction of reprocessing technology and provide incentives for companies to invest in waste processing infrastructure. We need to remove the hazardous waste from the system through the use of extended producer responsibility schemes (for batteries and gas bottles, TVs and electronics, at least), further expand the product range accepted in kerbside recycling schemes and we need to limit the amount of organic material going to landfills by encouraging large-scale composting and advanced waste treatment.'