Good intentions, but lousy execution, as usual, by the government. Can we really be blamed for skepticism around most of the environmental regulations being passed in Europe and the US?

****

In a fit of virtue-signaling, New Jersey passed a law in 2020 that banned single-use plastic and paper bags in all stores and foodservice businesses starting in May 2022. It’s a major inconvenience for state residents, and now a report suggests it has also been an environmental dud.

Freedonia Custom Research put together the “market assessment” of the plastic-bag ban. It found that New Jersey’s consumption ofplastic for bags increased three-fold after the ban. How could this be?

Commissioned by the American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance, the report acknowledges that the total number of plastic bags declined by 60% since the ban—as its backers hoped. But because shoppers still had to carry their groceries home, they needed alternatives. Mostly that meant switching from the thin plastic film bags to the heavier, reusable bags now sold in many supermarkets.

The problem is that most of these alternative bags are made of non-woven polypropylene, which takes much more plastic to make and isn’t widely recycled. And what about the supposed climate benefits? Well, the study fi nds that, owing to the larger carbon footprint of the heavier, non-woven polypropylene bags, greenhouse gas emissions rose 500%. The problem is compounded by the way people use these bags. Though intended to be reused many times, the report says 90% of thenew reusable bags are used a mere two or three times. So they are piling up in landfi lls and homes. Think of your own behavior in misplacing bags around the house or forgetting to bring them when heading out for groceries.

We doubt this reality will lead to second thoughts among the solons who forced this law on Garden State residents and boasted how strict it was. Too often the idea behind green initiatives seems to be that if it’s infl icting pain, it must be working. But the road to thisplastic misfi re was paved with green intentions—untempered by any serious cost-benefit analysis.

This ought to be the motto of the climate lobby: We don’t help the environment, but we feel good about it anyway.

[Post edited by nyhoo at 01/30/2024 12:54PM]