Seattle Bans Plastic Grocery Bags. Does the City Care if it Succeeds or Fails?

Today, the Seattle City Council voted unanimously to ban plastic grocery bags and impose a 5 cent fee on paper bags. The goal is to "reduce plastic litter and protect Puget Sound marine life."

Will it make a difference? Probably not and there are tradeoffs.

For example, paper bags use four times a much energy to produce as plastic bags. The amount of energy, and related carbon emissions, used to create grocery bags, therefore, is likely to climb.

It is doubtful that plastic bags have the impact on marine life that is claimed. The example provided by advocates, of a Puget Sound gray whale found dead with plastic bags in its stomach, generally omits the fact that the bags were less than 1 percent of the stomach contents and that the bags probably didn't cause the death.

Additionally, Oregon State University researchers note that "Recent research by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that the amount of plastic, at least in the Atlantic Ocean, hasn’t increased since the mid-1980s – despite greater production and consumption of materials made from plastic."

So, what is the balance between these tradeoffs? How will we know if the ban is doing more harm or more good?

We have asked the City of Seattle Office of Sustainability to provide:

• Any analysis of the environmental costs and benefits of the proposed ban (E.G. the reduction in plastic trash vs. the increase in energy use by switching to paper bags)
• Since we get what we measure, any metrics the City will use to determine the success or failure of the ban.

My concern is that the City Council voted for this out of a desire to appear green rather than considering the environmental costs and benefits of the policy with a clear idea of what "success" looks like.

This has been the pattern with other "green" policies in Seattle, including the "Car-Free Days" (where the City never attempted to quantify the impact), the purchase of biofuels by the City (which was more expensive and created more environmental impact), and building the City Hall to "green" building standards (which resulted in the building using more energy than the previous building).

We'll share whatever we receive from the City.